THESIS:
The longsuffering of our Saviour presents to us a challenge – Are we as patient
with our enemies? Even our friends?
This evening we’ll again be considering Mark 2:23-3:6
23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn
fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the
ears of corn. 24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath
day that which is not lawful? 25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what
David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with
him? 26 How
he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did
eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave
also to them which were with him? 27 And
he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of
the sabbath.
And
he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a
withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day;
that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And
he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil?
to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And
when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the
hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And
he stretched it out: and his hand was
restored whole as the other. 6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the
Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.[1]
The last time we met together we considered the
Sabbath day itself. If we are going to
understand the texts before us, we need to rightly know the Sabbath. You may recall the thesis of that message, To know the Lord is the intent of the Sabbath. We considered many passages but we did not
closely handle the text of Mark. Today
we will consider Mark 3:1-6, but before we do so, I want to briefly consider
the matter of David and the showbread, and Christ’s handling of the Pharisees
in that portion.
The account of which Christ refers is found in 1
Samuel 21:1-6. The show bread is better
known to be the bread of the presence.
Leviticus 24 tells us that each Sabbath 12 hot loaves of this bread was
to be placed before the Lord. Every week
the previous week’s bread was given to the priest and his family, while 12 new
loaves were set before the Lord. It was
5 of the 12 loaves which was to be given David.
And it was the fact that David and his men had a real need. They were not just wanting a snack – they
were hungry.
One of the resources I used for this message was a
rather simple Bible study book on Luke by William Barclay and he had a couple
of fascinating insights. “The Rabbis
themselves said, ‘the Sabbath is made for you and not you for the
Sabbath’. That is to say at their
highest and their best the Rabbis admitted that human need abrogated ritual
law.”[2] In our account we read that Christ finalizes
his defense using their own proverb against them! The Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath. These
men not only were without defense, they were dead wrong! And this using an
account from as far back as David – nearly 1000 years before! They did not have a leg to stand on.
The declaration, Therefore the
Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath speaks to us also of the unique
relationship of Jesus to us. Christ did
not claim Lordship over the Sabbath based on his deity – but on his
humanity. I want you to grasp this
clearly. Christ being the God-man has a
unique place in history. David could
break the Sabbath justly, because of the human need of real hunger. Christ claims – for his disciples sakes to be
Lord of the Sabbath. And it is this same
Lord, who due to his humanity, knows our every weakness and need. Psalm 103:14
states, For He knows our frame; He remembers that we
are dust. Hebrews 4:15 says, For we do not have
a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points
tempted as we are, yet without sin. The beauty of our God is his ability to really know us! And the beauty of the Sabbath is for us to
know our God!
As we consider Mark
3:1-6 the overall subject of debate is the same – Christ and his handling of
the Sabbath. In a way there are many
parallels between the two accounts.
Christ is the accused one. His
accusation is on the heels of helping someone in human need. The accusers are again the Pharisees. Only the site is different – in the
synagogue. We aren’t told what city, but
it was most likely one of the northern Galilean cities, possibly Capernaum,
which was frequented by him. If that is
the case it’s even more interesting, since the cities of Galilee were the
backwaters of the nation. To see that
Jesus’ ministry was attracting their attention, even way up north demonstrates
his popularity to some extent.
Exegetically there is
really only one comment I need to make – when the Scripture states the
Pharisees were watching him – the word used there is not of a casual glance or
passive viewing – the men were looking for him to slip up and perhaps even
making mental notes of the event – so that they might charge him with a
crime.
One of the
difficulties in studying the gospel accounts is the amount of eyewitness data
which we have to evaluate. I am a firm
believer that there is a harmony in the Scripture. If we do not believe there is a harmony in
the Scripture – that is to say, if we believe that there are contradictions in
the book – then we cannot trust any of it, in my estimation. Either it is true, or it is not. Any apparent contradiction is due to one of
the following factors: We have not studied the passage enough, or we have lost
a piece of the cultural history or it is a matter of the manifold mysteries of
God. At times it can be a whole
multitude of things.
But as students of
the Bible, we should never be satisfied to settle with an indeterminate
understanding. It may be that we have to
set the text aside for a time and come back to it later. I have done this before. I once had a very
inadequate view of my assurance. There
were just too many difficult passages, and sometimes we have to wrestle through
them. At the time, I was a very young
believer, and did not have either the tools or the personal history with my
God, to settle the matter. So I did what
we all need to do at times. I found a
good proof text and rested on that for a time (John 10:27-29). It was nearly 12 years later before I began
to get a better foundation of the believer’s assurance, and now I have a
multitude of arguments and proof texts to settle on.
So all that to say,
there is a harmony in the Gospel accounts but the 3 accounts do have some apparent contradictions. I hope to show you how I harmonized them and
then we can see the real debate Christ had with the Pharisees and draw some
conclusions.
To begin with we have
to make several observations. I know
this is an exposition of Mark, however, since we have other Biblical accounts
of the same event, we must consider them also.
Marks gospel does not stand alone. In Luke’s account (Luke 6:6-11) we
learn that it was the man’s right hand which was withered. Why do we need to know this bit of
information? Does it add to the account
in any way theologically? What reason
might Luke have had to include this rather inane bit of evidence? Neither of the other 2 accounts reference
which hand it was that was withered. We
need to first realize that details like this aren’t inane. Details like this
give significant weight to the verity of each account. We have 3 very clear accounts of the event
before us. Yet none is a cookie-cutter
of the others. What we are doing as we
seek to harmonize these accounts is very much like a cold-case investigator. The difference we have between the modern
detective working cold-cases, is that he also has to determine if the testimony
given is true – we do not have that burden.
We already know that
we hold the Scripture to be true – and this is not simply because we have
confessions that state it. The
confessions are restatements of the historical theological realities which
preceded them. Remember that it is Peter
who tells us we have the ‘more sure word’! We have eyewitness testimony, historical
witness to the event – and just like modern day witnesses, the accounts can
vary somewhat, yet still be the truth.
The fact that the witness of Scripture is true does however place us in
a unique position. We are required to
seek, as best as we can, to reconcile those apparent contradictions. To ignore them, is to actually cast doubt
upon the truth of the whole witness of Scripture.
So Luke tells us it
was the man’s right hand. One other observation Luke makes is that Jesus knew
their thoughts. This bit of information
will help us quite a bit when we are looking at the motives of the
Pharisees.
Matthew tells us that
there was a great deal more dialogue than we see in either Mark or Luke. In particular, we see one of our apparent
contradictions – Matthew states specifically that it was the Pharisee’s who
first asked, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?’ But while that seems to be a rather apparent
contradiction – please note the question the Pharisee’s asked was NOT the same
question the Jesus later reiterates in Mark 3:4. The questions are quite similar – but the
Pharisee’s questions is direct and pointed.
Jesus is asking a far more general question, ‘Is it lawful on
the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?’
Let’s consider the
Pharisee’s question – do you see how they are trying to pin Jesus down? Such a question is not asked out of honest
inquiry. Consider some other questions
posed to Christ – Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? or Is it lawful to
pay taxes to Caesar, or not? None of these questions was asked out of
genuine interest to learn – but only to indict Him.
Is it lawful to heal
on the Sabbath? Actually it was indeed
lawful to heal, if the afflicted party was likely to die. This wasn’t such a case. The answer to the question is a qualified no.
But they did not want to know the answer.
The fact of the matter was that this was a well-established
principle. The rabbis would occasionally
debate the fine points of treatment – but truly the case of this man’s withered
hand did not fall into those categories.
We read in Matthew
that Jesus responded to their question with 2 other questions. He actually treated their inquiry as though
it were genuine - What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls
into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? We should strive to never answer a question according as it was
asked. There is a proverb which speaks
to this very question, Proverbs 26:4, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.” This is one reason Christ could have used to
answer such questions. However, there is
another motivation – love.[3]
We may perceive a
dishonest question – but it may be the case that we are wrong – or there may be
an honest party in the group listening.
Don’t forget, Luke tells us Christ knew their thoughts. Nevertheless, he also accommodated their
impetuous question. And note the logic
Christ employs in his questioning. The
first question, asked about a sheep in a pit is without answer. Interestingly, there is a very similar account
to Luke 6 in Luke 14, where Christ asks nearly the same question, in nearly the
same circumstances – healing on the Sabbath.
This time it was in one of the Pharisee’s homes and the man to be healed
had dropsy. Christ first healed the man,
and then asked, “Which of you, having a
donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out
on the Sabbath day?” 6 And they could not answer Him regarding
these things.”
But notice the
logic – if you pull a sheep out of a pit…Of how much more value then is a man than a
sheep? Again we hear no answer. Jesus now, I believe,
asks them the question we read in our account in Mark - Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to
kill?” This question is in line with the two questions found in Matthew,
and sums it up nicely. In every instance
the question is not answered – because to answer it is to betray their motives.
We are explicitly told that they kept silent, in more than one account. Hearing no answer, Christ our Rabbi finalizes
his teaching, ‘Therefore it is lawful to do good on the
Sabbath.’ Barclay again comments, “Jesus
lays down the great principle that, whatever the rules and regulations may say,
it is always right to do a good thing on the Sabbath day.[4]
In our account
in Mark 3:5 we now read of Jesus anger. Luke
tells us he knew their thoughts, and here in Mark the reason given is that he
was grieved by their hard hearts. But
I’d like to ask you, what does the fact that Jesus knew their hardheartedness
tell us about how he strove with them?
In other words, when you see in your child a rebellious heart – do you
strive with him, though you are grieved?
Or is it the case that, knowing their ways, you rake them over the coals
out of spite? What did Christ do?
Over and over
throughout the Scripture we read that our God is a condescending God. He associates with men of low-estate. The incarnation itself speaks to that
fact! In our both the accounts laid out
before us today, we see Jesus, teaching stubborn men. Probing their thoughts, asking them to
consider their ways. We read in Isaiah,
God appealing to us a number of times.
Isa. 1:18, Come now, and let us reason
together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as
white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. In Isa. 55 nearly the whole of the chapter is
God pleading with us. And who can forget
the bargaining that Abraham made with God over his nephew Lot?
Brothers and
sisters - it’s time to view our God aright.
Seeing the Son strive with stubborn undeserving men, shouldn’t we do the
same, both toward those in the Church, and those without? They will know we are
Christians by our love one to another.
So Christ –
looking around at them in anger then heals the man. Even in this act, he teaches us. How many of us have, due to an angry flash,
neglected to do the right thing – possibly punishing the innocent party at the
same time? Christ does not forget this
man or feel slighted by their hard heartedness.
But often we, under pressure from those around us cave in to the
pressure and make a weak apology to the party in need, ‘Buddy can you just come
back tomorrow’? But our Lord doesn’t do
this. Remember the Proverb, “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, When it is
in the power of your hand to do so. 28 Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come back, And tomorrow
I will give it,” When you have it with you.” (Proverbs 3:27–28)
First, let us remember that
the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Yet these men were making the gift of God to
us to be a burden to men. Do we do
that? Of course the answer is that we do at times the very same thing. I realize it isn’t our intention, but do we
strive with those around us so that they know we love them – or do we demand
strict adherence to the law? The Sabbath
was never meant to be a burden to men.
But men, not knowing their God misapplied Sabbath law to be a burden
from an overbearing God. Remember my
comments on the man picking up sticks the last time we met? It was this man’s deliberate tempting of God
for which he was guilty. Sure, picking
up sticks was not permitted, but the reason was that we men might see the
faithfulness of our God. He’d already
showed them in the collection of manna that he could be trusted and knew their
need. What kind of sticks are we picking
up – are we tempting our God?!
Second, do we strive and condescend
with others in a spirit of genuine concern for their souls – even if they
despitefully use us? Do we love our enemies?
Christ did! Luke 6:27-30 says, “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to
those who hate you, 28 bless
those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other
also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you.
And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back.” And he taught us this both by example in our
passage, as well as directly in this passage.
This tells me it’s a serious matter.
How we treat one another is of paramount concern in today’s world folks.
The enemy has
made many of us to be angry because of the injustice in the world. But do we let that anger justify ourselves to
disobey the Lord plain directive to love our enemies and one another? If we do – we give satan the foothold in our
lives.
And how do we
think unbelievers will respond to people who angrily tell them to keep their
politics to themselves, and yet do not actually care about their souls? Have we
forgotten that the Lord has placed us providentially in this time and place –
and He send us to go out into the highways and byways to compel them to come
in? How can we be salt & light when
we let our anger direct our hearts? The
Scripture says be angry and sin not! Our
Lords anger didn’t prevent him from healing the man – and nor did he lash out
at them for the hardness of heart. The
anger of Christ wasn’t malicious – it was because of love – we are told he was
grieved at them. You cannot be grieved with someone you do not know or care about.
May the Lord help
us to follow the example of Christ and trust in the providence of our God.
Amen
[1] The
Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized
Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mk 2:23–3:6.
[2]
The Gospel of Luke, The Daily Study Bible
Series. -- Rev. Ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 70.
[3]
The following Proverb 26:5 speaks to NOT answering the fool according to his
folly lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Christ occasionally followed this proverb also.
[4]The Gospel of Luke, The Daily Study Bible
Series. -- Rev. Ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 72.
