Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
Lesson 3: Early Conflicts, Mark 2:1-3:6 by
Brad Anderson
Last time we studied a typical day in Jesus’ life. As Jesus
preached and did miracles, he not only attracted a large following,
but he also became the target of much criticism.
Clearly 2:1-3:6 is a separate section in Mark's Gospel. In it Jesus
comes into conflict with the Jewish religious leadership in a series
of five separate incidents. It is highly unlikely that these incidents
happened in chronological sequence or even come out of the same
period in Jesus' ministry. Mark brought them together because they
have a common theme: conflict with the religious authorities. There
can be little doubt that the church in its ongoing struggle with
Judaism found such stories comforting. Mark’s continuing purpose
in this section is to show Jesus’ mighty words and works,
even in the face of great opposition.
Conflict over Healing a Paralytic (2:1-12)
This unusual event occurred either at Jesus’ own house or
at the house that belonged to Peter’s family. Wherever he
was, the people of Capernaum flocked to hear Jesus speak and to
receive healing of their diseases.
How did these men gain access to Jesus? They dug thru the roof.
The idea of digging through a roof seems odd to us, but it was not
a difficult operation in the houses of this time. A typical Palestinian
peasant's house was usually a small, one-room structure with a flat
roof. Access to the roof was by means of an outside stairway. The
roof itself was usually made of wooden beams with thatch and compacted
earth in order to shed the rain.
Sometimes tiles were laid between the beams and the
thatch and earth placed over them. So it was not a difficult task
to dig a hole in the roof. As they dug, chunks of earth and thatch
no doubt rained down on the people below.
Jesus recognized this ingenuity and persistence as faith. Mark says
Jesus "saw their faith." Great faith was evident in the
actions of both the paralytic and his bearers. As a means of healing
the man of his lameness, Jesus forgave his sins. This hardly seemed
to be what the man needed—at least on the surface. But we
must remember that all suffering is rooted in man's sinfulness and
alienation from God. In this case, the man’s physical condition
was directly tied to his spiritual condition.
What were the results of Jesus’ claim to forgive the man’s
sin? 1. The man was healed; 2. Jesus’ enemies accused
him of blasphemy. If they were right about who Jesus was, their
reasoning was flawless—no one but God can forgive sin. Their
error was in not recognizing who Jesus really was--the Son of God
who has authority to forgive sins; 3. The people were amazed.
The healing verified the claim to grant forgiveness. As sure as
actual healing followed Jesus' statement “Get up” (v.
11), so actual forgiveness resulted from his statement “your
sins are forgiven.”
Note: The fact that Jesus takes it upon himself to forgive the man’s
sins is a clear indication that Mark is trying to prove Jesus’
deity. The Pharisees were right—no one but God has the right
or power to forgive sins. Mark is trying to prove that very point.
Conflict over Eating with Sinners (2:13-17)
Jesus may have done his teaching on this occasion as rabbis often
did—“as he walked along.” If so, his teaching
was interrupted by his encounter with Levi. Levi was probably his
given name and Matthew (“gift of God”) his apostolic
name. He was employed by Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee,
as a tax collector. A traveler from either Herod Philip's territory
or the Decapolis would naturally pass through Capernaum on entering
Galilee. The Jews despised tax collectors because they were considered
traitors and because they often took money that they were not entitled
to. Tax men were not paid a salary—they kept a portion of
the money they received. It’s noteworthy that Jesus would
select such a person to be one of his disciples.
Where did Jesus find Levi? At the "tax collector's booth."
This was probably the toll booth on the road that ran from Damascus
through Capernaum to the Mediterranean coast. There was much at
stake for Levi in accepting Jesus' challenge. Fishermen could easily
go back to fishing (as some of the disciples did after Jesus' crucifixion),
but for Levi there would be little possibility of his returning
to his occupation. Tax collector jobs were greatly sought after
as a sure way to get rich quickly.
Matthew and his guests were literally “reclining at table”
(.15) during the meal. The Jews of this time followed the custom
of reclining at meals. Broad couches were provided, each large enough
for several people. Each guest lay on his left side, resting on
his elbow, taking the food with his right hand.
What problem did Jesus’ critics have with this meal? That
a supposed teacher would associate with such disreputable people.
Probably all the people at this meal were social outcasts and disreputable
people. The Pharisees saw such people as unclean, and demanded that
Jesus do likewise. Note: the critics were not at the meal—they
would not defile themselves by contact with a gentile. They were
outside the house.
Read verse 17. Explain what Jesus means by a “righteous”
person and a “sinner.” The “righteous” are
the self-righteous, the Pharisees and others who saw themselves
as good; "sinners" are those who don’t make any
pretenses of following the Law or being good. They are sinful and
they know it—they recognize their need. Jesus' call is to
salvation; and, in order to share in it, there must be a recognition
of need. A self-righteous man is incapable of recognizing that need,
but a sinner can.
The fact that the Pharisees had no mercy for others showed th
at they had no true righteousness. Jesus is saying
in a round about way that the Pharisees are in worse shape than
those who ate the meal with him.
Who Were the Pharisees?
Scholars know little of either the origin or the predecessors
of this sect. The probability is that they were the successors
of the Hasidim, the pious Jews who joined forces with Mattathias
and his sons during the Maccabean period. After religious liberty
was achieved, they largely deserted the Maccabees in their struggle
for political independence. They first appear under the name
"Pharisee" during the reign of the Hasmonean John
Hyrcanus (135-104 BC).
The Jewish historian Josephus says, "The Pharisees are
a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of
their nation in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents
of the laws" (War I, 110 [v. 2]). Although many of them
were doubtless pious and godly men, those Jesus came into conflict
with represented some of the worst elements of traditional religion:
jealousy, hypocrisy, and religious formalism. "Pharisaism
is the final result of that conception of religion which makes
religion consist in conformity to the Law, and promises God's
grace only to the doers of the Law" (Metzger, The New Testament,
p. 41). The friendship of Jesus with people who openly refused
to keep the requirements of the law prompted the question "Why
does he [supposedly a ‘religious' or observant Jew] eat
with tax collectors and ‘sinners'?"
Conflict over Fasting (2:18-22)
The average Jew recognized four fasts throughout the year. John’s
disciples were probably fasting and praying because John was in
prison. A Pharisee might fast twice a week as part of his religious
duties. Fasting was common among many religious people. Some were
wondering why Jesus didn’t insist that his disciples also
fast (in fact, they had just enjoyed a feast at Levi’s house).
How did Jesus answer their question? With a parable.
Fasting--a sign of mourning--is not appropriate at
a wedding. A Jewish wedding feast was a particularly joyous occasion.
The guests joined in the celebration that sometimes lasted a week.
To fast during that time of great joy and festivity would be unthinkable.
Jesus is the bridegroom (v. 19) and his disciples the guests. While
he remains with them they will rejoice, not fast. However, he will
not always be with them. When he is taken away (v. 20), fasting
will be appropriate (c.f. Matt 6:17).
In ancient times wine was kept in goatskins. New skins were soft
and pliable and would stretch when wine that had not yet completed
fermentation was put in them. However, old wineskins that had been
stretched would become brittle and, being no longer pliable, were
thus unable to stretch. The gas from the fermenting wine burst them
open, destroying both wine and wineskins. What point is Jesus making
in these parables? The main teaching of the parable seems to be
that the newness the coming of Jesus brings cannot be confined to
the old forms. The old garment and the old wineskin are Judaism
as practiced by the Pharisees with its externalism and false righteousness.
Jesus didn’t come just to patch that sort of thing up. He
came to start something new. He’s telling them to discard
the old and take up the new. Putting new wine into old wineskins
(v. 22) and patching an old garment with a new cloth (v. 21) are
just as inappropriate as fasting at a wedding feast.
Conflict over Picking Grain on the Sabbath
(2:23-28)
The Sabbath originally was given to restore man, to give him rest
and recreation. Properly observed, it would be a joy. But the Pharisees
had so ringed it about with their thousands of interpretations of
what it meant to cease work that they had made it a terrible burden
to bear. For instance, they held that it was perfectly all right
to spit on a rock on the Sabbath, but if you spit on the ground,
that made mud; mud was mortar; therefore you were working on the
Sabbath. So it was absolutely wrong to spit on the ground! That
was the nature of the restrictions they devised.
Were Jesus and the disciples breaking the OT Law here? No; in fact,
it was specifically allowed: "If you enter your neighbor's
grain field, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must
not put a sickle to his standing grain" (Deut 23:25). The Pharisees
regarded this as harvesting (regular farm work) on the Sabbath.
They were breaking rabbinical ideas only.
How did Jesus respond to this criticism? Jesus poses a question
of his own (v. 25). The incident he refers to is recorded in 1 Sam
21:16. David and his companions were hungry and ate the consecrated
bread--the twelve loaves baked of fine flour arranged in two rows
or piles on the table in the Holy Place. Fresh loaves were brought
into the sanctuary each Sabbath to replace the old ones that were
then eaten by the priests (cf. Exod 25:30; 35:13; 39:36; Lev 24:59;
cf. Jos. Antiq. III, 255-56, [x.7]). Although the action of David
was contrary to the law, he was not condemned for it. Jesus does
not claim that the Sabbath law has not been technically broken but
that such violations under certain conditions are warranted. "Human
need is a higher law than religious ritualism" (Earle, p. 49).
What is Jesus’ point in vss. 27-28? To Jesus the Sabbath was
not created for its own sake; it was a gift of God to man. Its purpose
was not to put man in a kind of straight jacket. It was for his
good--to provide rest from labor and opportunity for worship. "Since
the Sabbath was made for man, He who is man's Lord ... has authority
to determine its law and use" (Taylor, p. 219).
Conflict over Healing on the Sabbath (3:1-6)
Why were some of the people watching Jesus so intently? To see if
they could accuse him of anything. Since Jesus had already raised
suspicions in their mind because of his unorthodox actions, these
men were present in the synagogue, not to worship God, but to spy
on Jesus ("they watched him closely"). They "were
looking for a reason to accuse Jesus." The statement "to
see if he would heal him on the Sabbath" makes it clear that
the Pharisees were convinced of Jesus' power to perform miracles.
The issue was not "could he" but "would he?"
What does it say about the spiritual state of these people that
they could see Jesus’ miracles and still be hostile toward
him? It shows their irrationality and the depths of their hostility
toward Jesus.
Why do you think Jesus had the man stand up in front of everyone?
To show that he wasn’t being secret about anything. He was
proving a point here and attacking the wrong doctrine of the Pharisees.
How did the Pharisees respond to Jesus’ question (.4)? Pharisees
were silent. They refused to debate the issue with Jesus.
Explain the source or cause of Jesus’ anger here. His anger
was "righteous indignation"--what a good man feels in
the presence of stark evil. Such anger was particularly appropriate
to this situation. But even such justifiable anger was couched in
compassion. The tenses of the verbs are important here. The looking
"around at them in anger" was momentary (aorist tense),
but the being "deeply distressed" was continuous (present
tense). Jesus' distress was caused by their "stubborn hearts,"
i.e., their consistent failure to acknowledge who he really was.
How do the Pharisees react to the miracle? They began to plot Jesus'
death. Tragic response to a display of the power of God. Also shows
that signs and wonders don’t necessarily result in faith.
Note the irony here: the Pharisees denounce Jesus for breaking a
minor aspect of their law, and then immediately begin to plot his
murder! It’s no wonder that Luke notes in his account that
they were “filled with madness.”
Who were the Herodians? The term probably refers to influential
Jews who were friends and backers of the Herodian family. This meant,
of course, that they were supporters of Rome, from which the Herods
received their authority. Normally, they were the enemies of the
Pharisees, but they joined the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus
because they feared Jesus’ influence.Conclusion: We learn
something about Jesus from each one of these conflict stories. Jesus
has not only the power to heal, but also to forgive sins. That’s
because he is God in the flesh. He knows that the self-righteous
would reject him, so he addresses himself to those who acknowledged
their own needy condition. Jesus is introducing something new that
does not fit the standard religious forms that people were used
to. Jesus is more interested in meeting human need than with following
man-made rules. And Jesus is deeply distressed at the hardness and
rebellion of the human heart.
Applications:
1. Human self-sufficiency and self-righteousness are major factors
in keeping people from salvation. Even Christians can fall into
this trap. We must fully rely on God, not only for salvation, but
also for help to deal with the regular events of life.
2. God doesn’t play favorites, and neither should we. Differences
of class, social station, race, wealth, and sex are unimportant.
We should be friendly toward all, especially those in need.
3. Meeting human need is more important than keeping human rules
and rituals. People must come before rules.
4. Conflict is inevitable for Christians. We must expect opposition,
and we should handle conflict like Jesus did. It’s okay to
be angry at the hard-heartedness and rebellion we encounter, but
we must not lash out against our adversaries.
Discussion:
1. What’s the purpose of all these conflict stories? Mark
was likely making a point to his readers—Jesus faced criticism
and persecution, and so will followers of Jesus. Also, each conflict
story highlights a different aspect of Jesus’ character.
2. Did Jesus’ enemies dispute the fact of his miracles? No,
they were so hard-hearted that it didn’t matter to them that
he did miracles.
3. Should Christians fast? Fasting can be a good thing, but it’s
not a necessary part of the Christian life. Fasting is usually linked
with prayer. One sets aside the time he would normally take to eat
in order to pray. It may be good to pray and fast in certain situations.
Or one might fast for medical/health reasons.
4. Can one be angry and still not sin? Yes, Jesus is an example
of that. Ephesians 4:26 “Be ye angry, and sin not.”
Anger often leads to sin, but not necessarily. “Blowing your
stack” or losing your temper is sinful; righteous indignation
is not.
5. Jesus often associated with disreputable “sinners.”
Should we do the same? Yes and no. Yes—we are called to have
relationships with the lost in order to evangelize them. However,
this incident does not provide any justification for us to hang
out in bars, nightclubs, drunken parties, dances, etc. No—Jesus
was not merely hanging out with these folks; he was preaching the
gospel to them. He was not being influenced; he was doing the influencing.
The purpose of the event was for Levi to introduce his friends to
Jesus. Further, this was a dinner party at a private home, not a
drunken revelry at a bar.
