Episode 4 

Mark 2:1-3:6 | Rising crescendo of conflict

Opening Comments

In our last episode, Jesus’ popularity grew exponentially; in today’s Bible portion, his opposition grew even more so. This is why I have given it the title, Rising crescendo of conflict.

Our section for today is all of Mark chapter 2 and the first 6 verses of chapter 3. Here, Mark presents 5 stories showing the developing conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities. We will discover important background information that will help us understand the story of Jesus better. We will learn about the relationship of Jesus with historic Judaism, and we will consider the heart of Jesus to heal the sick and how that might apply to our contemporary health care issues. We also will discuss an important tool for Biblical interpretation which we will find useful for many passages of the Bible. This is where we will begin.

Mark arranges this section of his gospel using a literary structure which was common in ancient Greek and Latin writing and common in the Bible but less used today. I want to explain this to you, even though it is a bit technical, because it has a definite impact on how we interpret this portion of scripture and many others. Without understanding this writing technique, you could easily miss the meaning of what Mark says.

This literary technique is called chiastic structure, named after the letter of the alphabet that we know as “X,” but the Greeks called “chi.” A simple example of chiastic structure today is the common saying, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” As you can hear, the main words of the first half are repeated in the second half in reverse order. This is analogous to the two lines that form the written letter X, which enter from the left side at opposite diagonals and intersect in the center. The elements of a Chiastic structure are usually labeled by letters, and in this example, the four main elements—going, tough, tough, going—are the letters A B B A. In this case, the vocabulary of the first half is repeated exactly in the second, but different words with a similar meaning may also be used. In that case, the points in the second half would be labeled B1 (B exponent 1) and A1, to show that they are somewhat same but a bit different.

Chiastic structure, which is sometimes also called inverse parallelism, may be used to structure an entire section rather than a simple statement. In this case, authors typically will insert a single, unmatched element in the center which carries the most important message. This is similar to the important intersection at the center of an “X” and this central point is sometimes labeled “X.” A 5-part chiastic structure of this type would be A B X B1 A1. This is the structure Mark uses here. The main idea is given in the third of five stories, and the second half of the structure revisits the same themes as the first, but in reverse order[1].

The first and last stories have to do with conflict about authority. The first I have entitled “Conflict about the authority to forgive,” and the final story is “Conflict about authority to heal on the Sabbath.” Now we can begin to see the beauty of this literary technique. It was perhaps designed to help people remember the details, in a time of oral transmission, but it also was designed to engender questions and discussion. “In what ways are these two points the same? In what ways are they different?” In this case, both points have to do with conflict about authority, but the focus of that authority is different. Again, the first story is about the authority to forgive, and the final story is about the authority to heal on the Sabbath.

The second story and the second to the last story carry a similar parallelism. The theme of both is conflict about eating. The first story has to do with eating with the wrong people, that is people who are socially and religiously unacceptable. The second to the last story concerns eating the wrong food, in this case, grain which has been harvested on the Sabbath. 

The center story gives the main point of the entire section. This is the basic conflict which forms the kernel of each of the other conflicts, and a conflict which we repeatedly reenact even today. This basic conflict can be stated simply as “out with the old, in with the new.” The religious authorities were extremely invested in their tradition and status quo, but Jesus came to inaugurate a newer, better way of living in God’s kingdom. This threatened the established religious structure to the core.

Notice how an awareness of the chiastic structure helps us to interpret Mark’s meaning. When we see the parallelisms between the early stories and the later ones, this gives us a clue that Mark is using a chiastic structure. We then look to the center to find the main point, because we know to expect it there. Without an understanding of chiasm, we probably would only see a series of interesting stories and would entirely miss the main point that Mark is trying to make.

Let me recap the five parts of this chiastic structure, this time stating each point in the order we see it in the text:

A  Conflict about authority to forgive

B  Conflict about eating with the wrong people. Then the central point…

X  The basic conflict: Out with the old, in with the new

B1 Conflict about eating the wrong food

A1 Conflict about authority to heal on the Sabbath

Conflict about authority to forgive (2:1-12) 

Let me begin reading with Mark 2 verse 1.

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Mark 2:1-5

 With the words “a few days later,” Mark separates this story from Jesus’ preaching tour of Galilee which was related at the end of the previous chapter. The people heard that Jesus had come home, probably a reference to Simon’s house. Mark sets up an interesting word play between house and crowd, using the similar sound of the words. The word for crowd is “ochlos” and the word for house is “oikos.” 

Ochlos. Oikos.

As you can hear, these two words have alliteration, with a similar sound at the beginning, as well as rhyme, sharing the same ending. The house is where Jesus gave special revelation and instruction to insiders, but with the crowd, who were outsiders, Jesus masks his teaching in parables. The crowd gathered in large numbers, but this was not a measure of success. Mark refers to crowds 40 times before chapter 10. They gave Jesus an audience but never turned to him in repentance and belief, which is what the gospel required. The crowds were mostly passive, even fickle. Their most common characteristic was that they blocked access to Jesus. That is what they do here.

Four men came to Jesus, carrying a paralyzed man. This is a general term indicating any disease or accident that makes a person unable to walk. How were they going to get him to Jesus? They could carry him easily enough on his mat between the four of them, but the crowd blocked the door to such an extent that they could not get him through. Well, if they couldn’t find an opening to come to Jesus, they would make one!

The typical middle eastern house had a flat roof accessed by an exterior stairway. The walls were made of stone and beams were laid across these walls, cross-hatched by smaller sticks, then covered with thatch, which in turn was covered with mud. Finally, the roof flattened with a stone roller. The roof functioned much as a deck today, giving additional space to get some fresh air, hang out the laundry, eat, or pray in quiet.[2]

It would have been a relatively easy job to dig through all the roofing materials, but it would have been messy for the people underneath. Jesus didn’t seem to mind! He saw their faith. This is Mark’s first mention of faith, which he links to action not belief. We don’t know anything about the beliefs of the four friends, but we see the action they took. This is what faith means to us, also. Faith is not knowledge about Jesus but actively trusting that Jesus can meet our deepest felt needs. The crowds had enthusiasm for Jesus, but enthusiasm for Jesus, even being physically close to Jesus, is not the same as faith. That requires action.

At this point, the story takes an unexpected twist. “Your sins are forgiven,” Jesus said. The men had come to Jesus for healing, not forgiveness. Does this imply that there was a relationship between this man’s illness and his sin? While theologians will usually agree that illness is part of God’s judgment on a human race living apart from God, in a general sense, we do not often blame a specific illness on someone’s specific sin. This is the only healing where Jesus connects sin with illness, and He may have reference to this man’s specific sins. The term “your sins” seems to speak of specific sins rather than the general sin condition we all share. It appears that Jesus knew this man’s particular situation and its relationship to his paralysis, so Jesus addresses him at the deepest level of his need. “Son, your sins are forgiven”

Continuing our reading from verse 6…

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
Mark 2:6-12

What had begun as a heart-warming story of healing had suddenly become a dangerous confrontation over religious authority. The Jews commonly believed that illness was caused by sin, but forgiveness was exclusively God’s choice. No religious leader could declare a person forgiven. Apart from ritual absolution on the Day of Atonement, not even the chief priest could forgive sins or even promise it. That is because, in every offense, God is always an offended party. Even if transgression seems to only be against your neighbor, the party most offended is still God. Only God can forgive an offense against Himself.

For this reason, the teachers of the law were right when they asked, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But they were inaccurate in their conclusion, “He’s blaspheming!” The proper conclusion they should have drawn from Jesus’ miracles and his teaching was “Jesus is God!”

Jesus not only knew the sins of the paralytic but the thoughts of the scribes. “Which is easier?” He asked. To forgive sins or heal?” Both are impossible for humans, but easy for God.

“I want you to know” Jesus said, “that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home” (vv. 10-11). The paralytic man came to Jesus because he believed Jesus could help him. The scribes needed Jesus just as much, but their education and status made them blind to their need. Jesus wants them to experience His authority firsthand. Forgiveness cannot be verified by observation, but healing can. Jesus will prove his authority to forgive by healing.

By linking healing and forgiveness, Mark shows that this is not simply an instance of healing that happened to be accompanied by forgiveness, but rather, it was Jesus’ intention, His mission, to make humans whole, both spirit and body. We will see this truth throughout Mark’s gospel, even later in this episode. I hope that you take this message of hope for yourself, today. Do you have a place in your life which is un-whole? It is Jesus’ intention to make you whole. I cannot tell you what that will mean for you, but I can encourage you to come to Jesus with faith that will not give up, just like these men did. Jesus wants to make you whole.

In verse 10 Jesus says “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” What is the meaning of that title, “Son of Man?” It seems to have been one of Jesus’ favorite titles, since Jesus refers to himself this way 14 times in the book of Mark. This expression comes from the prophecy of Daniel regarding a glorious Messiah figure. Let’s read a portion of this prophecy from Daniel chapter 7.

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
 Daniel 7:13-14 

I will not attempt to give a full explanation of Daniel’s prophecy, but here are a few basic points. First, Daniel uses the term primarily to refer to a human being, who stands in contrast to four other worldly beasts that Daniel has just seen in his vision. Second, the primary emphasis is on this figure’s authority, glory and power given by God. Third, he receives a kingdom from God. You can see why Jesus felt this was such a powerful description for His mission. The idea of authority was Jesus main emphasis, here, and continues to be the primary focus throughout the book of Mark.

One of the reasons that Jesus frequently chose this title for Himself was that it was sufficiently ambiguous. It did carry an association with the Messiah, for those who had faith to understand it, but many also simply assumed that this was another way of saying “human one,” so no one was shocked or scandalized by Jesus reference. This allowed him to speak of himself in public without facing hostility, but also in a way that allowed his hearers to discover his true identity, as the promised messiah, if they had a mind to.

So far in this episode we have discussed chiastic structure which Mark frequently employs to give form to his narrative, and shown how our current section about Jesus’ conflict with authorities is an example of that structure. We have discussed the first element of that structure, Conflict about authority to forgive, which we could label “A.” 

We now come to “B”…

Conflict about eating with the wrong people (2:13-17) 

Beginning with Mark 2:13…

Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 
 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
 Mark 2:13-17

There are several similarities between this story and Jesus’ earlier call of the four fishermen: Jesus was walking along the Sea of Galilee, He called people who were not religiously respectable, and those He called followed Jesus without further discussion. This story is also like the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in that it progresses from the particular to the general. In the first instance from healing Peter’s mother-in-law to healing many, and in this instance from Levi to many tax collectors. Thirdly, it is similar to the story of the paralyzed man, in that an ever-present large crowd gathered around Jesus. He was not a specialist teacher with a select class of initiates, but a public teacher with a message for the masses

Levi was sitting at the tax collector’s booth. Who was this man? He is generally identified as Matthew, the gospel writer and listed disciple of Jesus. Levi was likely his given name. The Gospel of Matthew calls him “Matthew,” his apostolic name, meaning “gift of the LORD.” 

The tax collector’s booth, where he sat, was probably a toll booth on the international road, “The Way of the Sea” which passed near Capernaum on its way from Damascus to the Mediterranean coast and on to Egypt. Romans collected property taxes and poll taxes directly, but taxes on transported goods were contracted out to local collectors, who made their own money by up-charging. Since Capernaum was on this international road and near the border between three different territories, it was a perfect place to collect transit taxes.

The Roman tax system was a system of graft and greed and attracted individuals with that character bent. In Palestine, most were ethnic Jews, but not very observant. They were despised and hated, like a Nazi “mole” or communist informant. Jewish tax collectors were disqualified as either judge or witness in court, expelled from the synagogue, and a shame to their family. Because tax collector’s revenue was considered robbery, Jews were not allowed to receive money from them, even the poor begging in the streets.[3]

Jesus’ call to Levi was the same simple “Follow me” we heard before. This term occurs 19 times in Mark. It is a weighty term describing the proper way to respond to Jesus in faith, practically synonymous with faith. Following involves risk and cost; it is action, not simply a belief. There is no dialogue. Just like the four fishermen, Levi must solely respond to the authority of Jesus. 

The religiously respectable were scandalized by Jesus’ actions of calling and fellowshipping with such a person. “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” they asked His disciples. The word “sinners” might be better as “wicked.” They are not occasional transgressors of the Law, but fundamentally outside of it.

Once again, Jesus had contact with an unclean person, not just unclean because of his disease, like the leper, but someone who had chosen a morally contemptible career. But Jesus is not concerned about this. Calling sinners is not an exception in His mission, it is typical.

This story illustrates the radical nature of grace. The Jewish oral tradition erected barriers among the people, creating a holy class, who studied the Law, and a lower class who did not, but the good news of Jesus seeks to transform people and bring them into fellowship with God. Jesus builds a bridge between God and our need.

Jesus did not make repentance a precondition for his acceptance. Rather, he loved and accepted tax collectors and sinners as they were. If they decided to change their evil ways, then they did so, not in order to gain Jesus’ favor, but because they had already received his acceptance as wicked people. By fellowshipping with them at the table, Jesus demonstrated the profligate love of God. He does not favor the elite, but came for us all.

Jesus pointed this out with a common proverb, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” Notice how Jesus again linked healing and forgiveness. In our earlier story, Jesus forgave the paralytic man; here he not only forgives sinners but calls them to follow and reclines with them at the table. This is what brought him into conflict with the authorities. The mission of the scribes was to enlighten; the mission of Jesus was to redeem.

We have now covered the first half of our chiastic structure, the A and B elements. Now we come to the center of our X, where Mark gives us the main point of these conflict stories. Here we see…

The basic conflict: out with the old, in with the new (2:18-22)

This was the foundational disagreement between Jesus and the religious authorities of His day, the age-old conflict between new and old.

The previous conflict was about eating with the wrong people. The next conflict will also be about eating—in this case eating the wrong food. But this central conflict begins as a concern about fasting, the opposite of eating.

Let’s begin reading in Mark 2:18.

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”
 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.
 Mark 2:18-20

In Judaism there was only one required fast on the Day of Atonement, which lasted 24 hours. In addition, some people imposed other fasts upon themselves as a sign of religious commitment. These self-appointed fasts usually lasted only from dawn to dusk. For example, we read that John’s disciples were fasting, perhaps because John was in prison, or perhaps as a reminder of their repentance. The Pharisees and their disciples also fasted, normally on Mondays and Thursdays.

Some people came to ask Jesus about this. These were evidently common people who expected religious people to fast. Their question implies that if Jesus and his followers want to be taken seriously, they need to pay greater attention to fasting.

To answer their question about fasting, Jesus offers a picture of feasting, a wedding. Weddings in ancient Palestine were a multi-day celebration. Even rabbis were expected to stop their instruction and join the celebration with their students[4]. Jesus pictures a wedding party waiting impatiently to eat. He offers a radical view of his entire ministry as a wedding. This was not a time to abstain but to celebrate. If people really understood his significance among them, they would celebrate. The fact that the Pharisees continued to fast showed that they did not grasp Jesus’ meaning as their bridegroom.

In the Old Testament, marriage imagery was not a picture of the Messiah, but of God himself. The fact that Jesus uses this metaphor was another claim that He was God.

Then Jesus makes a jarring statement. “The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.” In a normal wedding, the guests leave to allow the couple to begin normal life together. The bridegroom is not taken away, such an alien thought!

This continues Mark’s foreshadowing of trouble coming in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus is with them now, but he will be forcibly taken away at his crucifixion. This foreshadowing began when His ministry debut coincided with the arrest of John the Baptist (1:14) and continued with the consternation of the scribes over Jesus’ presumptuous forgiveness of sins. We will see this foreshadowing grow continually darker until day becomes night at His death.

Mark next includes two parables from Jesus which point to the central conflict between Jesus and the authorities. He says, in verse 21…

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”
 Mark 2:21-22

These are the first parables included in Mark’s gospel, and both describe the relationship of the good news of Jesus to traditional Judaism. These figures of speech are fairly easy to understand. An old garment cannot be repaired with new, unshrunk cloth. An old leather wineskin, which has already been stretched by fermenting wine, cannot be used for new wine. There is no stretch left. New wine needs new wineskins.

In other words, Jesus brings a new reality which cannot be contained with old categories. He did not come to patch up the old cloth of Judaism. He did not ask people to add His worship to their existing religious practices. He knew that when the good news of the kingdom of God fermented in his followers’ lives, they would need entirely new vessels to contain it. This image of new wineskins for a new kingdom refers primarily to the new community of believers, the church, which Jesus inaugurated. Jesus preached a radical change, one that the religious authorities of His day were totally unprepared to make.

As we complete this central point of Mark’s chiastic structure, we turn to revisit the earlier points, but in the reverse order. We began with point A, “Conflict about Authority to forgive,” and continued with point B, “Conflict about eating with the wrong people,” Now we turn to develop the matching points of the structure, beginning with B1…

Conflict about eating the wrong food (2:23-28)

In addition to the inverse parallelism in the structure, Mark also includes a climatic development throughout these five stories, each of them becoming more emotionally intense and more dangerous for Jesus. We see that, here.

Mark 2:23:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” 
 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 
 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
 Mark 2:23-28

Just like the previous story about fasting, this story begins with a question regarding the behavior of Jesus’ disciples and similarly concludes with two sayings of Jesus. These clues point to Mark’s conscious shaping of the narrative.

Jews had an extremely high view of the Sabbath. Circumcision and Sabbath were the two observances that set the Jewish nation apart from all others. The Mishnah, the authoritative Jewish interpretation of Hebrew scripture, lists 39 classes of work which profane the Sabbath. In this passage, the disciples violate two classes of prohibited work, traveling and harvesting, although only harvesting is mentioned. Perhaps that is because the Pharisees were obviously following along behind Jesus and His disciples, so they profaned the Sabbath by traveling also.

What exactly are the disciples accused of doing? As they walked along through the grain fields, they reached out and picked a few heads of grain, rubbed them between their fingers, blew on them a bit to get rid of the chaff, and popped the seeds of grain into their mouth. This provided them with food to hold them over until they could have a proper meal. There was nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, this sort of casual eating was specifically allowed in Old Testament Law. The book of Deuteronomy says that you may pick all the grapes you want from your neighbor’s vineyard, but don’t put any in your basket. You may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not take a sickle to the standing grain (Deut. 23:24-25). This was a reasonable law given by God, but Jewish tradition had totally changed it. Now it was considered unlawful harvesting on the Sabbath.

Jesus responded by recalling a story from the life of David. Normally Jesus would make pronouncements based on his own authority, but occasionally, like here, he would follow the rabbinic practice of appealing to scripture to settle a controversy. David and his small band were running from King Saul’s pursuit. Apparently, they had not had time to properly prepare for their journey and when they came to the place where the tabernacle of the Lord was, they were hungry. David asked the priest for food. The only bread he had was holy bread. Every Sabbath, twelve flatbreads were placed on the altar of incense before the Lord. The priests were to eat it in the sanctuary as the most holy part of their share of food offerings presented to the Lord. In this case, the bread had just been replaced by hot bread, and so last week’s bread was given to David and his men.

Jesus does not cite David’s violation of the Law to make an excuse for his disciples’ actions but to establish precedent. Both David and his disciples had done what was technically forbidden, but within the spirit of the law. It is lawful to do good and save life. With this story, Jesus invites a comparison between himself and David, the messianic prototype. This is the first reference to David in Mark’s gospel, showing that Jesus is not only the son of God, but also the anticipated royal son of David. 

Mark concludes this section with two sayings of Jesus in verses 27 and 28. First, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; and second, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

“The Sabbath was made for man” states the basic principle; “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” gives the authority behind it. The word “man” provides the link between these two statements.

The sabbath was grounded in the story of creation, a God-given day for our benefit. Jesus corrects the mistaken understanding that the Law was to be a heavy yoke on human life and reveals its true intent as a support and guardian for life. The rules of ritual have been replaced by its original purpose from the beginning—rest and worship.

The Greek of verse 28 places the word “Lord” in the beginning emphatic position in the sentence. In his commentary on Mark, James Edwards suggests that we might translate it like this, "And who is Lord of the Sabbath? The Son of Man is![5] " Jesus places himself squarely in the place of God. “I am God of the Sabbath!” The religious authorities were certainly not ready to accept that.

As we turn from chapter 2 of Mark to chapter 3, we have almost reached the end of this X-shaped narrative. The first and last conflicts in this series of five concern authority. We conclude with a…

Conflict about authority to heal on the Sabbath (3:1-6)

We will label this A1.

Already Jesus has developed a reputation as a blasphemer, a colleague of sinners, a religious apostate and a Sabbath breaker. I will begin reading in Mark 3:1.

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
Mark 3:1-6

The expression “shriveled hand” has a range of meanings such as “withered” or “stiff.” Stiff may fit best in this context. 

Opposition to Jesus was beginning to solidify. They didn’t question his ability to heal, they just wanted to see if He would disobey their law to do so, so they watched Him closely. Jewish tradition prescribed that aid could be given to the sick or injured on the Sabbath, but only when the person’s life was threatened. That is obviously not the case here.

Jesus could have told the man to come see him tomorrow, but instead he said, “Stand up in front of everyone.” Oh, you can feel the man’s horror! He did not want to be the center of attention, but he did want to be made whole, so he stood. 

“Which is lawful on the Sabbath,” Jesus continued, “to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?

The first part of the question, “to do good or to do evil” focuses on Jesus’ intent with the present healing. For Jesus, human need presents a moral imperative. He can meet human needs. Where good needs to be done, failure to do good is evil. For this reason, it was right to heal on the Sabbath, whether or not it was lawful.

I wonder how this same moral imperative applies today. In the United States, we have tremendous health care needs, even if those needs may not touch you personally. There are places in this country with inadequate access to doctors and other medical care, and people in this country who cannot afford the care that is available. Surely, the richest country in the world could meet these needs. We should certainly discuss the best ways to deliver health care to the people, but for followers of Jesus, those discussions begin with a moral imperative. If we need to do good, and if we can do good, then failure to do so is evil.

The second part of his question, “to save life or to kill” was ironic. Jesus knew that his accusers were actively plotting, on the Sabbath, to kill him. In contrast, Jesus planned to save life. For Jesus, true religion was not about fulfilling stipulations, but meeting people’s needs.

The religious authorities were not willing to answer His question. They remained silent. Normally an argument from silence is a poor argument, but this one was conclusive. Jesus looked around at them in anger, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts. This series of strong emotional words is used only here in Mark’s gospel. “Stubborn” means his opponents were unwilling to understand.

Jesus does not waffle in his decision. He does not take a poll to help Him decide what to do or take time to consider the personal consequences. He simply does what is right.

“Stretch out your hand,” He said. The thing the man wanted least was to become a spectacle, but the thing he wanted most was to become whole.

“He stretched it out” (v. 5). Mark again describes faith without using the word. He just describes the action.

“Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.”  From now on, Jesus conducted His ministry under the shadow of the cross. There was a contract on his life.

Final Comments

The five stories we have covered today display a steady intensification of conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders. In the first story of the paralyzed man let down through the roof, the antagonism remained largely unspoken. In the following three, the conflict sparks verbal confrontations and in the final story of Jesus’ restoring a withered hand on the Sabbath their hatred erupts into a plot against Jesus' life.

As we look forward to our next episode, we will see that the crowds still follow Jesus, Jesus still heals many, and impure spirits still confess him as the Son of God. Jesus appoints twelve men to be his mission representatives, with a commission to preach and have authority over demons. We also see both the teachers of the law and his own family accuse him of being out of his mind. This contrast between insiders and outsiders is a major theme until the end of the book.

If you have found this podcast helpful, I would appreciate your sharing it with your friends by word of mouth, social media, or whatever means you have available. If you in a small group of Christian friends who study the Bible together, I have provided discussion questions in the episode notes that could form the basis for a group discussion. Thank you for your help in growing this Bible Wisdom Today family.

[1] Hooge, L. J. (2010, November 28). Mark 2:1-3:6 – Jesus and 5 controversies. Biblical Chiasmus. https://biblicalchiasmus.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/mark-21-36-marks-1st-set-of-controversies/
citing Joanna Dewey
[2] Edwards, J. R. (2002). Trouble with the Authorities. In The Gospel According to Mark (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Eerdmans.
[3] Edwards, J. R. (2002)
[4] Edwards, J. R. (2002)
[5] Edwards, J. R. (2002)