Mark 2:13 - 3:6

philologos

This study continues on from the previous two studies (study 1, study 2) that we have looked at in the Gospel of Mark.

Both Christians and non-Christians are welcome, but I would ask that you respect that this thread is about looking to what Christians can learn from Scripture. Any debates about whether or not God exists should be taken to the Atheist / Christian debate thread.

I would also advise you to pray to ask Jesus to open up His word to us as we are reading and discussing. Also please pray that people will regard this as an exercise in sharing God's word with eachother rather than boasting about who knows more or less about the Bible and most importantly that this will build us up as a community on Boards.ie

Previously we were looking at Jesus as the Messianic king who has shown His authority, Jesus as the Lord, and Jesus as the promise who was to come. We've looked into the Kingdom of God, repentance, and John the Baptist as the precursor to his coming as Jesus had foretold, and partially as to the only criteria for entering the Kingdom of God.

The topic as we look to Mark's Gospel this week is hard heartedness. There is a tendency amongst Christians to demonise the Pharisees, but I want you to try and empathise with what the Pharisees are saying in this passage. We have 4 scenarios presented to us where we see how Jesus responds to the Pharisees. We also had a brief introduction to this topic for 2:1-12 from the previous study.

[Jesus Calls Levi]

[13] He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. [14] And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
[15] And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. [16] And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” [17] And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

[A Question About Fasting]

[18] Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” [19] And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. [20] The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. [21] No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. [22] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.”

[Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath]

[23] One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. [24] And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” [25] And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: [26] how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” [27] And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. [28] So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

[A Man with a Withered Hand]

[3:1] Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. [2] And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. [3] And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” [4] And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. [5] And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. [6] The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

Questions for consideration while reading this passage:

(2:13-17)
1. Why do you think that Jesus was teaching to the crowd in v.13 (see Mark 1:38)
2. How were tax-collectors viewed by Jewish society at the time of Jesus?
3. What is surprising about Levi's response to Jesus? (v.14).
4. What is surprising about verse 15?
5. Do you think it is fair for the Pharisees to ask why Jesus is doing this? (v.16)
6. What is interesting about Jesus' response in verse 17?
7. What do you think Jesus is saying about the Pharisees in verse 17?

(2:18-22)
8. Do you think the people were justified in asking why the disciples weren't fasting? (v.18)
9. What do you think of Jesus' analogy of the bridegroom and the guests? (v.19)
10. What is Jesus telling us about Himself in verse 20?
11. What do you think that Jesus is telling us about His ministry in verses 21 to 22? (see Hebrews 8, and Jeremiah 31:31-34).

(2:23-28)
12. Why do you think the disciples were plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath? (v.23) (see Leviticus 19:9-10 and Deuteronomy 23:24)
13. Were the Pharisees reasonable in criticising Jesus?
14. Is Jesus trying to justify breaking the law or does he mention David for another reason? (see 1 Samuel 21:1-6 for backstory about David) (v.25-26)
15. What do verses 27-28 tell us about Jesus and the Sabbath?

(3:1-3:6)
16. What are the Pharisees trying to do in verse 2?
17. Why does Jesus ask the Pharisees whether it is lawful to save a life or to kill it on the Sabbath?
18. Why was Jesus grieved in verse 5?
19. How does verse 6 help us better understand verse 4?

20. What can we learn from the Pharisees in this section of Mark's Gospel as Christians?

Also to remind you you are free to continue posting on the other two threads if you find something interesting in them. The discussion isn't closed by any means once a new section is introduced.

philologos

Just posting to put this up to the first page as I feel this is worthy of discussion.

lmaopml

I think the bridegroom; and Jesus calling himself the bridegroom, is both a joyful and prophetic message - he is saying who he is, introducing a new covenant which must have been hard for some to understand and easier for others who understood Scripture at the time.

The parable of the wedding feast is very symbolic, and this is another reference to the role the saviour plays - who he is, in his earthly ministry. This particular part of Scripture must be understood while referencing it...

Jesus is the Bridegroom, we are the guests - our garments are what we choose to wear to the occasion, and feast where nobody will 'fast' anymore, much like it wasn't necessary while he lived among us - but was when he died for us. He is drawing a parallel between feasting/fasting here and the final feast and judgement - the Wedding.

It's often said that we put on the new and leave aside the old when following Christ - I think the wedding feast doesn't do 'patchwork' and Jesus is just letting us know that we either put on the old or put on the new to attend..that whatever we choose to wear will be apparent, and will tell it's own story.

philologos

Thanks for your response lmaopml:

I found the section that you've just brought up to be one of the more difficult parts of Mark's Gospel. Throughout the last few weeks, I've seen a lot of what I brushed over in this Gospel be completely unravelled and made clear. Sometimes it takes a bit of hard work and getting deep into other areas of Scripture to bring up the point that Mark is communicating. I've been really blown away by this this year, and gutted that I didn't quite understand much of it on the first reading

Here's what I think both the bridegroom and the wineskins are meant to present.

First one - People don't mourn while the bridegroom (Jesus) is still around. Why would people fast when there is something to celebrate. The arrival of Jesus as the promised King, Messiah, and Lord into the world. We've seen Jesus' identity be slowly unraveled. We found out that the "Son of Man" isn't merely a title to say that Jesus is human, but rather that the Son of Man will be brought into heaven to have dominion over all things under the Ancient of Days (God the Father) if you see Daniel ch 7. The Gospel is good news. The bridegroom will inevitably leave - which is why many Christians fast today, but will return in glory to judge all mankind.

Second one - I think has to do with covenant theology. I.E - That one cannot put what is new into old wineskins hence they will burst. Jeremiah prophesied that there would be a new agreement between God and His people, indeed from the very beginning in Deuteronomy it was prophesied that there would be a leader like Moses with authority to preach a new message to His people (Deuteronomy 18). This is only one facet of Jesus that Mark tries to show us as we move on in his Gospel. This is probably pointing to the Biblical truth that Jesus Christ satisfied the Mosaic law in full on our behalf so that we can come into righteousness through Him. It's best not to jump the gun and allow Mark to speak for himself in the coming chapters though.

But great. Let's see if we can get into some of the other interactions that Jesus has with the Pharisees, and hopefully some of the others will join us

Fanny Cradock

I think that Jesus' interaction with the Pharisees is wonderful. It really challenges the notion that Jesus was meek and mild. In reality he was much more concerned with things like justice and judgement.

I can imagine the scandal he caused by publicly calling the self-professed religious authorities hypocrites.

The Quadratic Equation

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

I wonder if Jesus had been born in today's times where he might have be born, what type of men the apostles might have been, and what the equivalent to tax collectors for the Roman empire might be today.

philologos

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

I wonder if Jesus had been born in today's times where he might have be born, what type of men the apostles might have been, and what the equivalent to tax collectors for the Roman empire might be today.

That's a really interesting question. However, I think the situation of Levi could be applied to any person who has sinned against God rather than any one category of sin in particular.

I think another interesting question to ask about that situation is why does Jesus say that?

Or more particularly what is He really saying about the Pharisees in that verse? Is He really claiming that they are without sin and don't need a physician, or is He trying to point out that they are as much sinners as the others are?

The Pharisees as I see it have a perception of piety, but deep down they are as sinful as anyone else in that society as Jesus points out in other sections of the Gospels.

Levi's response is brilliant because one way that people can deal with their sin is to deny God and run away from Him rather than embracing Him and accepting His authority. Levi at this point immediately knows that he is a sinner and follows Jesus. Clear cut repentance. The hard hearted are actually the most orthodox in terms of religious belief. We can all become like the Pharisees sometimes though, which is why I said try and empathise with their position.

Their question IMO is entirely valid in that situation. If Jesus is proclaiming to be the Son of God it comes naturally to ask why would He be with others who are clearly sinning against Him. His response teaches us plenty though.

scriba

I always saw the actions of the Pharisees in direct contrast to Christ's teachings after the Sermon on the Mount, as related to the thought, word, and deed which all amount to the same sin (see Mt 5:27-32 on adultery; Mt 5:21-23 on murder), where the thought to kill is seen in the same light as the act of killing. The Pharisees are portrayed as using the Law for their own ends, their intention does not match what they profess to do, hence they are hypocrites. Their motivation is clearly to catch Christ as breaking OT Law, but the reader actually sees that the Pharisees are breaking God's Law, as explained by Christ elsewhere.

The company that Jesus keeps is also to my mind a challenge to the literal keeping of Jewish law, there seems more than a hint of the same attitudes that we see towards the Gentiles in Acts 10-11, when Peter visits Cornelius. Jesus first of all gathers the outcasts of Jewish society, before eventually the promise is given to Jews and Gentiles, after Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his companions. As pointed out earlier, Levi's response is indeed significant - he recognises his own sin and that Jesus is his path to salvation, a fact lost on the onlooking Pharisees.

All the passages, from Jesus keeping company with sinners, the lack of fasting, the plucking of grain, and the miraculous healing of the man's hand, all emphasise the role of Jesus in superseding the letter of the Law with the spirit.

One can certainly emphasise with the Pharisees (although it is difficult to do so from the text, which is decidedly against them!). They seem to have been men who were the keepers of an ancient tradition, and their biggest fault was their hard-heartedness, which prevented them from seeing and believing in the divinity of Jesus. But they also play a role in this account - we are to learn a lesson from the Pharisees, and not be as they are. Hardness of heart is an interesting concept in the Bible, Pharaoh's heart was hardened by God several times in Exodus, and so he could not see the signs of God in the plagues of Egypt. Perhaps there is something in that.

Thanks for the post, Philologus, most stimulating!

philologos

What do people think in particular about the man with the withered hand and how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees in that case?

scriba

philologos wrote: »

What do people think in particular about the man with the withered hand and how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees in that case?

The very presence of the man with the withered hand in the synagogue, when looked at in the context of Mk 1-2, perhaps indicates that he has come to the synagogue to be healed. The idea of those who have faith being healed is a strong theme throughout the Gospels.

It is an interesting exchange between Christ and the Pharisees. They have come in order to see if Christ heals anyone on the Sabbath, contrary to the law, yet when Christ questions them on it, they do not (or cannot) answer. It could be a sign of Jesus' superior understanding of the Law (given that he is come to fulfil it). In the context of my earlier post, Jesus may well be contrasting his own actions with those of the Pharisees. He sets doing good in opposition to doing harm, and saving a life in opposition to killing. It is clear what Jesus is doing, by healing the man, he does good, the significance of this is spiritual as well as physical, we assume. We're then drawn to the activity of the Pharisees, who have come intending to do Jesus harm in their machinations to catch Him out. When they are satisfied they have evidence, they make plans to destroy Him. Elsewhere in the Gospel, Jesus equates the intent to kill with the act of killing (Mt 5:21-3). Thus according to the NT understanding of sin, it is the Pharisees who are breaking the Law, they break the commandment not to kill simply through their intent to harm and kill Jesus. Maybe this is why they are silent, but taking their hard-heartedness into account, perhaps they do not realise this.

philologos

I was struck by Jesus' perceptiveness in 3:4 where Jesus asks whether it is lawful to save life or to kill, because in 3:6 it is clear that they wanted to kill Him. Jesus already knows what is taking place in their hearts. We've already seen a number of examples of this in Mark's Gospel. However, it is funny how he compares it.

How on earth can He be wrong, when they are the ones who long to kill Him? It is a probing question so that the Pharisees might take a look at themselves. However, it is perfectly natural that if someone claimed that they were God, that they would think that they were being blasphemous. I think if I were in their situation I would be about as frustrated. It is only because they don't understand how Jesus is substantiating Himself as being God, He's already shown us that He has authority in word, and deed, that He is the David that is to come, yet He is also God Himself.

Why don't they get it is the question we need to come more and more as we come through Mark's Gospel, not just in relation to the Pharisees but in relation to anyone else as well.

The Quadratic Equation

I wonder how we would treat a man claiming to be the Son of God today instead of then ? Don't forget, we currently have the huge advantage of hindsight, but what if we did not ?

scriba

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I wonder how we would treat a man claiming to be the Son of God today instead of then ? Don't forget, we currently have the huge advantage of hindsight, but what if we did not ?

philologos wrote: »

It is only because they don't understand how Jesus is substantiating Himself as being God, He's already shown us that He has authority in word, and deed, that He is the David that is to come, yet He is also God Himself.

A really interesting question. One of the accusations against the Jewish priesthood in the Gospels is that they fail to recognise the signs of Jesus's divinity. These signs are established partly through His actions in fulfilling OT prophecy and in the similarity of Jesus's actions to those of the prophets (such as David, and Isaiah). I see this as kind of a framework, established in the books of the OT, where different prophecies, and those that were privy to revelation all contribute to a list of attributes or features that will be associated with the Saviour. The implication here is that these signs are obviously meant to be interpreted so that we understand Jesus to be the son of God, and points to a culture where the significance of Jesus' fulfilment of older prophecies would have been understood at least by some. I'm not so sure the same ability to understand such signs/fulfilment of prophecy exists in our own time. I guess what I'm getting at is whether or not we would recognise how the son of God might be manifest among us, let alone recognise someone to be the son of God.

As to how that person might be treated today, I'd imagine predominantly with ridicule.

scriba

philologos wrote: »

I was struck by Jesus' perceptiveness in 3:4 where Jesus asks whether it is lawful to save life or to kill, because in 3:6 it is clear that they wanted to kill Him. Jesus already knows what is taking place in their hearts.

Something I take for granted when I read the Gospel, and often forget! His ability to discern what is in the human heart seems to be applied to many situations, especially when he heals those who come in faith - but also in this one. This situation reminds me of how the narrative is to end: with the crucifixion and resurrection, and how Jesus was aware at all times of His fate.