No matter where He went, God’s Servant was thronged by excited crowds (Mark 3:7–9, 20, 32; 4:1). Had Jesus been a “celebrity” and not a servant, He would have catered to the crowds and tried to please them (see Matt. 11:7–15). Instead, He withdrew from the crowds and began to minister especially to His disciples. Jesus knew that most of the people who pushed to get near Him were shallow and insincere, but His disciples did not know this. Lest they take all of this “success” seriously, Jesus had to teach these men the truth about the crowds and the kingdom. In this section, we see our Lord’s three responses to the pressure of the crowd.

He Founded a New Nation (Mark 3:13–19)

The number of the disciples is significant because there were twelve tribes in the nation of Israel. In Genesis, God started with Jacob’s twelve sons, and in Exodus, He built them into a mighty nation. Israel was chosen to bring the Messiah into the world so that through Him all the nations of the earth could be blessed (Gen. 12:1–3). However, the nation of Israel was now spiritually decayed and ready to reject her own Messiah. God had to establish “a holy nation, a peculiar [purchased] people” (1 Peter 2:9), and the 12 Apostles were the nucleus of this new “spiritual” nation (Matt. 21:43).

Jesus spent all night in prayer before choosing these twelve men (Luke 6:12). When He selected them, He had three purposes in mind: (1) training them by personal example and teaching, (2) sending them out to preach the Gospel, and (3) giving them authority to heal and cast out demons (see Mark 1:14–15, 38–39; 6:7–13). These twelve men would thus be able to continue His work when He returned to the Father, and they would also be able to train others to carry on the ministry after them (2 Tim. 2:2).

In the New Testament, you will find three other lists of the names of the twelve disciples: Matthew 10:2–4; Luke 6:14–16; and Acts 1:13. Luke tells us that Jesus gave them the special name “apostles.” A disciple is one who learns by doing; our modern equivalent might be “an apprentice.” An “apostle” is one who is sent on official service with a commission. Jesus had many disciples but only 12 Apostles, His special “ambassadors.”

When you compare the lists, it appears that the names are arranged in pairs: Peter and Andrew; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew (Nathanael [John 1:45]); Thomas and Matthew (Levi); James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (Judas, son of James, not Iscariot [John 14:22]); Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. Since Jesus sent His Apostles out two by two, this was a logical way to list them (Mark 6:7).

Simon’s name was changed to Peter, “the rock” (John 1:40–42); and Levi’s was changed to Matthew, “the gift of God.” James and John were given the nicknames, “Boanerges—the sons of thunder.” We commonly think of John as the apostle of love, but he certainly did not begin with that kind of reputation, nor did James his brother (Mark 9:38–41; 10:35–39; Luke 9:54–55). It is encouraging to see what Jesus was able to do with such a diversified group of unlikely candidates for Christian service. There is still hope for us!

Mark defined the Hebrew word Boanerges because he was writing for Roman readers. In his Gospel you will find several of these “special notes for Gentiles” (Mark 5:41; 7:11, 34; 11:9; 14:36; 15:22, 34). The word Canaanite in Mark 3:18 has nothing to do with national or racial origin. It is the Hebrew word cananaean, which comes from a word that means “to be jealous, to be zealous.” The Zealots were a group of Jewish extremists organized to overthrow Rome; and they used every means available to advance their cause. The historian Josephus called them “daggermen.” It would be interesting to know how Simon the Zealot responded when he first met Matthew, a former employee of Rome.

If you consult a harmony of the Gospels, you will see that between Mark 3:19 and 20, Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) and participated in the events described in Luke 7:1–8:3. Mark’s Gospel does not include that famous sermon because his emphasis is on what Jesus did rather than what Jesus said.

He Established a New Family (Mark 3:20–21, 31–35)

Our Lord’s friends were sure that Jesus was confused, and possibly deranged! The great crowds they saw following Him, and the amazing reports they heard about Him, convinced them that He desperately needed help. He simply was not living a normal life, so His friends came to Capernaum to “take charge of Him.” Then his mother and “brethren” (Mark 6:3) traveled thirty miles from Nazareth to plead with Him to come home and get some rest, but even they were unable to get near Him. This is the only place in the Gospel of Mark where Mary is seen, and her venture was a failure.

History reveals that God’s servants are usually misjudged by their contemporaries, and often misunderstood by their families. D.L. Moody was called “Crazy Moody” by many people in Chicago, and even the great Apostle Paul was called mad (Acts 26:24–25).

Emily Dickinson wrote:

Much madness is divinest sense To a discerning eye; Much sense the starkest madness.

’Tis the majority In this, as all, prevails.

Assent, and you are sane; Demur—you’re straightway dangerous, And handled with a chain.

Our Lord was not being rude to His family when He remained in the house and did not try to see them. He knew that their motives were right but their purpose was definitely wrong. If Jesus had yielded to His family, He would have played right into the hands of the opposition. The religious leaders would have said, “See, He agreed with His family—He needs help! Don’t take Jesus of Nazareth too seriously.” Instead of giving in, He used this crisis as an opportunity to teach a spiritual lesson: His “family” is made up of all those who do the will of God. Our Lord’s half brothers were not believers (John 7:1–5) and Jesus felt closer to the believing publicans and sinners than He did to James, Joses, Judah, and Simon, His half-brothers.

Our Lord was not suggesting that believers ignore or abandon their families in order to serve God, but only that they put God’s will above everything else in life. Our love for God should be so great that our love for family would seem like hatred in comparison (Luke 14:26). Certainly it is God’s will that we care for our families and provide for them (see 1 Tim. 5:8), but we must not permit even our dearest loved ones to influence us away from the will of God. When you consider the importance of the family in the Jewish society, you can imagine how radical Christ’s words must have sounded to those who heard them.

How does one enter into the family of God? By means of a new birth, a spiritual birth from above (John 3:1–7; 1 Peter 1:22–25). When the sinner trusts Jesus Christ as Saviour, he experiences this new birth and enters into God’s family. He shares God’s divine nature (2 Peter 1:3–4) and can call God “Father” (Rom. 8:15–16). This spiritual birth is not something that we accomplish for ourselves, nor can others do it for us (John 1:11–13). It is God’s work of grace; all we can do is believe and receive (Eph. 2:8–9).

He Announced a New Kingdom (Mark 3:22–30; 4:1–34)

The crowds hoped that Jesus would deliver the nation and defeat Rome. Instead, He called twelve ordinary men and founded a “new nation,” a spiritual nation whose citizens had their names written down in heaven (Luke 10:20; Phil. 3:20). The crowds wanted Jesus to behave like a loyal Jew and honor His family, but Jesus established a “new family” made up of all those who trusted Him and did the will of God. The crowds also expected Him to restore the kingdom and bring back Israel’s lost glory; but His response was to announce a new kingdom, a spiritual kingdom.

“Kingdom” is a key word in this section (Mark 3:24; 4:11, 26, 30). John the Baptist had announced that the arrival of the King was near and he had warned the people to prepare to meet Him (Mark 1:1–8). Jesus took up John’s message and preached the Good News of the kingdom and the necessity for sinners to repent and believe (Mark 1:14–15). But what is this kingdom like? If the Lord was not going to restore Israel and set up a political kingdom, what kind of kingdom was He planning to establish?

At this point, Mark introduced a new word—parables (see Mark 3:23; 4:2, 10–11, 13, 33–34). Jesus explained the kingdom, not by giving a lecture on theology, but by painting pictures that captured the attention of the people and forced them to use their imaginations and think. Our English word parable comes from two Greek words that mean “to cast alongside” (para—alongside; ballo—to throw or cast). A parable is a story or figure placed alongside a teaching to help us understand its meaning. It is much more than “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning,” and it certainly is not an “illustration” such as a preacher would use in a sermon. A true parable gets the listener deeply involved and compels that listener to make a personal decision about God’s truth and his or her life. So penetrating and personal are parables that, after they heard several of them, the religious leaders wanted to kill the Lord Jesus! (see Matt. 21:45–46)

A parable begins innocently as a picture that arrests our attention and arouses our interest. But as we study the picture, it becomes a mirror in which we suddenly see ourselves. If we continue to look by faith, the mirror becomes a window through which we see God and His truth. How we respond to that truth will determine what further truth God will teach us.

Why did Jesus teach in parables? His disciples asked Him that very question (Mark 4:10–12; and see Matt. 13:10–17). A careful study of His reply reveals that Jesus used parables both to hide the truth and to reveal it. The crowd did not judge the parables; the parables judged the crowd. The careless listener, who thought he knew everything, would hear only a story that he did not really understand; and the result in his life would be judgment (see Matt. 11:25–30). The sincere listener, with a desire to know God’s truth, would ponder the parable, confess his ignorance, submit to the Lord, and then begin to understand the spiritual lesson Jesus wanted to teach.

Jesus placed a great deal of importance on the hearing of the Word of God. In one form or another, the word hear is used thirteen times in Mark 4:1–34. Obviously, our Lord was speaking, not about physical hearing, but about hearing with spiritual discernment. To “hear” the Word of God means to understand it and obey it (see James 1:22–25).

Our Lord gave several parables to help the people (and that included His disciples) understand the nature of His kingdom.

The strong man (vv. 22–30). Jesus healed a demoniac who was both blind and dumb (Matt. 12:22–24), and the scribes and Pharisees used this miracle as an opportunity to attack Him. The crowd was saying, “Perhaps this Man is indeed the Son of David, the Messiah.” But the religious leaders said, “No, He is in league with Beelzebub! It is Satan’s power that is at work in Him, not God’s power.”

“Beelzebub” (or “Beelzebul”) is a name for the devil, and it means “master of the house.” Jesus picked up on this meaning and gave a parable about a strong man guarding his house. To plunder the house, one must first overcome the strong man.

Jesus exposed both their bad theology and their faulty logic. If it was by the power of Satan that He had cast out the demon, then Satan was actually fighting against himself! This meant that Satan’s house and kingdom were divided and therefore on the verge of collapse. Satan had been guarding that man carefully because the devil does not want to lose any of his territory. The fact that Jesus delivered the man was proof that He was stronger than Satan and that Satan could not stop Him.

Jesus did much more than answer their false accusation. He went on to explain the seriousness of what they had said. After all, our words reveal what is hidden in our hearts (Matt. 12:35), and what is in our hearts determines our character, conduct, and destiny. We sometimes say, “Talk is cheap!” But in reality, what we say can be very costly. Jesus warned the Jewish religious leaders that they were in danger of committing an eternal and unforgivable sin (Matt. 12:32).

When you ask people, “What is the unpardonable sin?” they usually reply, “It is blaspheming the Holy Spirit” or “It is the sin of attributing to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit.” Historically speaking, these statements are true; but they do not really answer the question. How do we today blaspheme the Spirit of God? What miracles is the Holy Spirit performing today that might be carelessly or even deliberately attributed to Satan? Must a person see a miracle in order to commit this terrible sin?

Jesus made it clear that God would forgive all sin and all blasphemy, including blasphemy against the very Son of God Himself! (Matt. 12:32) Does this mean that God the Son is less important than the Holy Spirit? Why would a sin against God the Son be forgivable and yet a sin against the Holy Spirit be unforgivable?

The answer lies in the nature of God and in His patient dealings with the nation of Israel. God the Father sent John the Baptist to prepare the nation for the coming of their Messiah. Many of the common people responded to John’s call and repented (Matt. 21:32), but the religious leaders permitted John to be arrested and eventually killed. God the Son came as promised and called the nation to trust Him, but those same religious leaders asked for Jesus to be killed. On the cross, our Lord prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and demonstrated God’s power in many convicting ways. How did those sa

me religious leaders respond? By arresting the Apostles, ordering them to keep silent, and then killing Stephen themselves! Stephen told them what their sin was: “Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost” (Acts 7:51). They had sinned against the Father and the Son, but had been graciously forgiven. When they sinned against the Holy Spirit, they had reached “the end of the line” and there could be no more forgiveness.

People today cannot commit the “unpardonable sin” in the same way the Jewish religious leaders did when Jesus was ministering on earth. The only sin today that God cannot forgive is rejection of His Son (John 3:16–21, 31). When the Spirit of God convicts the sinner and reveals the Saviour, the sinner may resist the Spirit and reject the witness of the Word of God, but that does not mean he has forfeited all his opportunities to be saved. If he will repent and believe, God can still forgive him. Even if the sinner so hardens his heart that he seems to be insensitive to the pleadings of God, so long as there is life, there is hope. Only God knows if and when any “deadline” has been crossed. You and I must never despair of any sinner (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

The sower and the soils (4:1–20). This parable helped the disciples understand why Jesus was not impressed by the large crowds that followed Him. He knew that most of them would never produce fruit from changed lives, because the Word He was teaching them was like seed falling into poor soil.

The seed represents God’s Word (Luke 8:11) and the sower is the servant of God who shares that Word with others (see 1 Cor. 3:5–9). The human heart is like soil: it must be prepared to receive the seed before that seed can take root and produce a harvest. Like seed, the Word is alive and able to produce spiritual fruit, but the seed must be planted and cultivated before that harvest will come.

As in that day, so today, there are four kinds of hearts and they respond to God’s message in four different ways. The hard heart (Mark 4:4, 15) resists the Word of God and makes it easy for Satan (the birds) to snatch it away. Soil becomes hard when too many feet tread on it. Those who recklessly “open their hearts” to all kinds of people and influences are in danger of developing hard hearts (see Prov. 4:23). Hard hearts must be “plowed up” before they can receive the seed, and this can be a painful experience (Jer. 4:3; Hosea 10:12).

The shallow heart (vv. 5–6, 16–17). This heart is like thin soil on a rock, very typical to Palestine. Since there is no depth, whatever is planted cannot last because it has no roots. This represents the “emotional hearer” who joyfully accepts God’s Word but does not really understand the price that must be paid to become a genuine Christian. There may be great enthusiasm for several days or weeks; but when persecution and difficulties begin, the enthusiasm wanes and the joy disappears. It is easy for fallen human nature to counterfeit “religious feelings” and give a professed Christian a feeling of false confidence.

The crowded heart (vv. 7, 18–19). This heart pictures the person who receives the Word but does not truly repent and remove the “weeds” out of his or her heart. This hearer has too many different kinds of “seeds” growing in the soil—worldly cares, a desire for riches, a lust for things—and the good seed of the Word has no room in which to grow. To change the image, this person wants to walk the “broad way” and the “narrow way” at the same time (Matt. 7:13–14); and it cannot be done.

The fruitful heart (vv. 8, 20). This heart pictures the true believer, because fruit—a changed life—is the evidence of true salvation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 5:19–23). The other three hearts produced no fruit, so we conclude that they belong to persons who have never been born again. Not all true believers are equally as productive; but from every genuine Christian’s life, there will be some evidence of spiritual fruit.

Each of the three fruitless hearts is influenced by a different enemy: the hard heart—the devil himself snatches the seed; the shallow heart—the flesh counterfeits religious feelings; the crowded heart—the things of the world smother the growth and prevent a harvest. These are the three great enemies of the Christian: the world, the flesh, and the devil (Eph. 2:1–3).

The lamp (vv. 21–25). In this parable, our Lord used a common object (a lamp) in a familiar scene (a home). The lamp was a clay dish filled with oil, with a wick put into the oil. In order to give light, the lamp had to “use itself up”; and the oil had to be replenished. If the lamp was not lit, or if it was covered up, it did the home no good.

The Apostles were like that lamp: they were called to shed God’s light and reveal His truth. But they could not “give out” without first “taking in”; hence, the admonition of Mark 4:24–25. The more we hear the Word of God, the better we are able to share it with others. The moment we think that we know it all, what we think we know will be taken from us. We must take heed what we hear (Mark 4:24) as well as take heed how we hear (Luke 8:18). Our spiritual hearing determines how much we have to give to others. There is no sense trying to “cover things up” because God will one day reveal all things.

The seed growing (vv. 26–34). The first parable reminds us that we cannot make the seed grow; in fact, we cannot even explain how it grows. There is a mystery to the growth of the seed and the development of the harvest. It takes a good deal of faith to be a farmer, and also a good deal of patience. In the Parable of the Sower and the Soils, the Lord suggested that much of the seed scattered would fall on unproductive soil. This fact could discourage His workers; so, in this parable, He reassured them “in due season we shall reap if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).

The second parable gave the disciples both warning and encouragement. The encouragement was that, from very small beginnings, the kingdom would eventually grow in size and in influence. While a mustard seed is not the smallest seed in the world, it was probably the smallest seed that the Jews sowed in their gardens. It was a traditional symbol of that which is tiny. Our Lord began with 12 Apostles. Later, there were as many as 500 believers (1 Cor. 15:6). Peter won 3,000 at Pentecost; and throughout the Book of Acts, that number steadily increased (Acts 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7). In spite of the sins and weaknesses of the church, the message has been carried to other nations; and one day, saints from every nation shall worship before His throne (Rev. 5:9).

But the growth of the seed is only one part of the story; we must also account for the birds in the branches. In the Parable of the Sower and Soils, the birds stood for Satan, who snatches the seed (Mark 4:15). If we are to be consistent in our interpretation, we must take this into consideration, for both parables were taught on the same day. The growth of the kingdom will not result in the conversion of the world. In fact, some of the growth will give opportunity for Satan to get in and go to work! There was Judas in the disciple band, and Ananias and Sapphira were in fellowship with the Jerusalem church (Acts 5:1–11). Simon Magus was part of the church in Samaria (Acts 8:1–24), and Satan’s ministers boldly invaded the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 11:13–15). The bigger the net, the greater the possibility of catching both good and bad fish (Matt. 13:47–50).

Through faith in Jesus Christ, we become citizens of the heavenly nation, children in God’s family, and subjects of the King of kings and Lord of lords. What a privilege it is to know the Lord Jesus Christ!^[1]

Good Or Evil, Life or Death? Mark 2:23-3:6

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”

In this series of messages we are considering Spending time with Jesus in a variety of settings. These questions always prove to be more provocative and important when the context in which they occur is carefully examined.

The question before us now comes from Mark 3:4. Jesus was addressing Pharisees who were looking for an excuse to oppose him. They were poised to pounce as soon as he did something that contradicted tradition. So “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.”

The law, of course, was an expression of God’s heart. So Jesus’ question was, “What would please God on the Sabbath day, to do good or to do evil, to give life or to kill?” This should not be a difficult question. The answer is so obvious that we would easily trust them to correctly answer this question.

However, Jesus’ antagonists refused to answer the question. Eventually they would indicate an answer that defied the heart of God. By the end of this passage we’ll find that they were choosing both evil and death. They were determined to kill Jesus.

Taking a step back

In Mark 2:23-3:6 there are two Sabbath stories back-to-back. For most of us Sabbath activities are not an ethical problem. But we have similar habits and behaviors. Something you’re doing to please God will look foolish or hurtful, if you take a step back and examine it. We are capable of doing the ungodly things in God’s name. Sometimes we need to be asked the sort of simple question Jesus asked: “Why are you doing this? Is this what God really wants human beings to live like? Is this healthy and honoring and sane and wise? Is it right in God’s name to do good or evil? Is it right to kill or make alive?”

Let’s read the first of the two Sabbath stories in 2:23-28:

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.”

This was not a tense exchange. Jesus’ questioners were clearly disapproving, but this text doesn’t describe them as being angry or antagonistic to the Lord. They asked a real question, and he gave them a very thoughtful, challenging answer. Jesus made powerful claims about the nature of the Sabbath and about himself, drawing on the Scriptures.

The second story, in contrast, is filled with confrontation. Let’s read 3:1-6:

Another time he 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.

Here, Jesus was in the presence of enemies. His actions were a clear challenge (“Stand up in front of everyone.”) Jesus was both angry and sorrowful at the hard hearts of traditionalists in this synagogue.  Now, to make sense of these stories, we need to ask, What is the point of the Sabbath? Why is the Sabbath a reason for the difficulties that are in this passage?

As I was considering these questions, I realized that we would do well in this culture to ask the Lord to teach us the lessons of Sabbath, or rest. We live in a time and place in which people are wound too tightly and they take themselves too seriously and work at a feverish pace. Therefore, let’s consider the lessons as we examine the two accounts in Mark.

SABBATH LESSONS

The Sabbath is an important theme in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The fourth commandment concerns the seventh day, and there were other laws about the seventh and 49^th year. There is a simple core to the idea of Sabbath. The word shabbâth, transliterated into English as Sabbath, is the word for rest in Hebrew. It means at its heart to relax, to cease from activities.

Sabbath rest is not a reward that is earned. It is a determination to not take ourselves seriously, to not add up our accomplishments and decide whether or not they’re good enough, to deliberately set ourselves aside and gaze at God and all that he has made. It’s the choice to make God important and ourselves unimportant, on a regular basis, from the heart.

YOU CAN REST

There are two different reasons given for the fourth commandment, in which the children of Israel were told to keep the Sabbath holy and do no work. The ten commandments are listed twice, in Exodus and Deuteronomy. First, Exodus 20:11: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The reason to keep the Sabbath in this case is that God rested, having completed everything that needed to be done. How many of us live with a desperate sense that no matter how much we do, it’s never enough? But, tasks can be finished. Work doesn’t have to go on forever. We aren’t required to carry every burden. Some of us fear that a moment’s relaxing of vigilance will lead to the unraveling of everything. Who knows what horrible things will happen if we relax? But God’s Sabbath calls for us to rest in Him.

Psalm 127:1-2 makes a wonderful point about vigilance:

“Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city,the watchmen stand guard in vain. In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat- for he grants sleep to [or while they sleep he provides for] those he loves.”

It’s foolishness to imagine we are indispensable. God makes the watchman successful and the builder successful, and he gives to his beloved in their sleep. God’s work is done, and he invites us to enjoy a sense of completion with him, not to be distracted and pressed always to do more and more.

 

THE SLAVERY IS OVER

The second reason for the Sabbath is that slavery is ended. Deuteronomy 5:15:

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

We can identify with the children of Israel. Once we too were enslaved, to ourselves and to the world. We were guilty of failing to meet the requirements, and we had to live a life of slavery. But now we’re free, and we don’t have to think like a slave anymore.

We are no longer under the command of anyone but God himself, and he intends for us to exercise our freedom. Every time we act in fear, believing that we don’t deserve anything better than toil and desperation, we’re violating the call the Lord gives us to be free people.  God calls us to reject the sense of foolish responsibility that makes us live without rest.

The Sabbath is a marvelous gift, an incredible blessing. But it is a gift that every generation resists. Sabbath rest is physically refreshing, it encourages community, it makes worship a priority, it teaches us the deep lessons of dependence on God.

The freedom to let go, to relax and enjoy the world God has made, the privilege of setting ourselves aside and gazing at him, the marvel of enjoying each other, of not having to pay attention and keep records and account for everything-it’s an incredible gift. And we resist it. Why is grace so hard to receive?

The law of the Sabbath was undermined quickly in Israel’s history. The questions became, If God says to do no work on the Sabbath day and keep it holy, what is work? In order for us to do no work, we need some accurate sense of measurement as to who’s working and who isn’t. And since this is a test, not only do I want to get it right, but I want to do better than everybody else. And so the ancient teachers wrote lengthy commentaries, trying to decide what was work and what wasn’t. These commentaries on Sabbath-keeping bring us back to the story in Mark 2:23-3:6.

Dragging a stick on the ground was forbidden on the Sabbath as a form of plowing. It was permitted to spit on a rock but not on the ground. If you spit on a rock, the spit would eventually evaporate, but if you spit in the dirt, it might actually make the dirt come together and form some sort of clay, which could conceivably be made into a brick.

I am told that there is a hotel in Jerusalem that has a “Sabbath elevator” in the hotel. This elevator is programmed to stop at every floor all twenty-four hours of the Sabbath. The rationale is that if you happen to be walking down the hall and the door opens, you can step into the car, and then if the car comes to a floor where you want to be anyway and the door opens, you can walk out, without having done any work. But if you push the button, that’s work, and you’re violating the Sabbath.

I have long told my children of a particular issue that arises in the church: we have congregations and individuals who are quick to “draw lines” that God did not draw. They seek to ‘legislate’ where they have no authority. This is wrong! We should not “add to” “or take away” from God’s Word. God knows how to instruct His people and God knows what we need. Let’s leave it to Him!

We must also admit that there is also an element in our brotherhood that seeks to “erase lines” that God has drawn. This is also wrong!

We need to avoid the Pharisaical attitudes which Jesus condemned in Matthew 23! We must not “bind loads on people” and do it with no willingness to “lift a finger” on their behalf.

The very commandment that called for joyful rest became an incredible burden. You have to work very hard to keep the Sabbath, as it turns out. You have to plan ahead and do many things on the sixth day, getting everything prepared, in order to be ready for the seventh. So the sixth day becomes especially burdensome. Further, you spend all of the seventh day wary of inadvertent failure: “What if I look the wrong direction? What if I say the wrong thing?”

The interaction that Jesus had with his accusers is very much like the struggle we have. Whenever God wants to give us something, we resist.

• Why does it feel like I’m being a better witness for the Lord when I’m most judgmental of my non-Christian friends?
• Why does it feel like I’m the best parent when I’m the most severe?
• Why do I imagine that God is pleased when I am the least joyful?
• Why do I think that the harsher I am, the better I am, or, conversely, that the more spontaneous I am, the more wicked I am?
• Where does that thinking come from? If we just take one step back and look at it, we see that it doesn’t make any sense at all. That was Jesus’ argument. The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath. Rest is a gift, not a burden.

 

FREEDOM AND CONFRONTATION

Regarding the picking of heads of grain on the Sabbath, Jesus was asked, “Why are your disciples doing what is unlawful?”

In reply he asked them an important question: “Haven’t you ever read the Bible? God often appoints his servants to break conventions.”

God is interested in love and righteousness. People who hear the message of the Bible will find themselves unable to settle for rigidity and narrowness and negativity. They won’t assume that it’s a good thing to do evil on the Sabbath, to kill rather than to make alive on the Sabbath, because the Bible is not like that.

Finally, note that Jesus said that he is Lord of the Sabbath. Do you think of him with that name very often? He is in charge of dispensing freedom and rest, taking off burdens. We’re not supposed to be driven and desperate and confused.

He intends for us to experience rest and contentment and joy that come from the Spirit. The work has been accomplished, the slaves are free, life is a gift. He is the Lord of the Sabbath, and if he is your Lord, that is his intention for you.

 

Did Jesus Violate the Sabbath? by Wayne Jackson

Question: A Christian writer/speaker, who travels extensively and lectures on “Does God Exist?, ” has written that the Bible indicates that Jesus, on one occasion, “violated” the Old Testament Sabbath-day law. He has cited the Gospel of Mark 2:23-24. Would you comment on this?

It is very unfortunate that the misguided gentleman made such a reckless and unfounded assertion. The statement is not only wrong, it involves both the Scriptures, and the Lord Jesus, in serious difficulty. Note these two points.

First, if Christ “violated” the law of God, then he sinned. Transgression of the law is sin (1 Jn. 3:4). If the Lord sinned, the biblical affirmations regarding his perfection are false (see Jn. 8:29; Heb. 4:15;1 Pet. 2:22). Thus, the brother’s careless statement casts a reflection upon the integrity of the sacred Scriptures.

Second, if Jesus broke the law of God, he would have been unable to function as the spotless sacrifice for our sins (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). Consequently, we would remain unredeemed, and of all men, be most pitiable.

And so, to contend that the Son of God “violated” the sabbath law is a concept that has dreadful consequences. The fact is, such a claim reveals a profound misunderstanding of the circumstances connected with Mark 2:23ff. Let us survey the details of that narrative.

On a certain sabbath day, Christ and his disciples were passing through a grain field. The disciples, being hungry (Mt. 12:1), began to pluck ears of grain and to husk them with their hands (Lk. 6:1).

The Pharisees saw the Lord’s men, and began to question Jesus as to why his disciples did that which was “not lawful” on the sabbath. These are the basic facts of the episode. Let us analyze the case.

First, Christ himself was not directly accused of breaking the law on this occasion. Only the disciples were charged with the violation. But the Pharisees were hoping to hold Christ accountable for the conduct of his students. How many teachers today would be persuaded by such an argument?

Second, the truth is, however, not even the disciples actually violated the sabbath law of the Mosaic system. Hebrew law made provision for those in need to eat when they passed through a field of grain (Dt. 23:25; cf. Ruth 2:2-3). So it was not “stealing” that was the focus of the Pharisaic criticism. Rather, this was the crux of the matter. Over the years, Rabbinic tradition had evolved a host of infractions (some 39) that, allegedly, violated the law’s prohibition of work on the sabbath. (This matter has been discussed in detail in Emil Schurer’s, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1891, II, pp. 96-105.)

One of these forbidden acts was “grinding,” which, by a nit-picking Pharisaical stretch, the disciples actions would be perceived to be doing. The activity, however, was hardly that of commercial grinding, as contemplated in the law.

Third, Jesus, in commenting upon the disciples’ conduct, plainly said they were “guiltless” (Mt. 12:7). The Greek term describes one who is not liable to blame in the matter of a crime (see W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary, Iowa Falls: World, 1991, p. 367). The disciples broke no law.

Christ did not intend to let these arrogant, law-making Pharisees usurp the place of God in binding unauthorized burdens upon his men. With brilliant logic he demolished the charges of the opposition. Here was his procedure.

First, by an ad hominem argument (i.e., one designed to expose the inconsistency of an adversary) the Lord cited the case where David unlawfully ate of the tabernacle showbread (Mt. 12:4; cf. 1 Sam. 21:6). Since the Pharisees did not condemn David, who actually did what was “not lawful,” they were hopelessly illogical in censuring the Master’s men, who had breached no more than Pharisaic, uninspired traditions. This was a blistering exposure of their insincerity.

Second, Christ demonstrated that not all labor on the sabbath was condemned. The priests served (worked) on that holy day without any guilt whatever (Mt. 12:5; cf. Num. 28:10). The priestly “profaning” of that day was merely one of perception, not reality. What the priests did was authorized by God.

Jesus then said: “one greater than the temple is here” (v. 6). The expression “greater than the temple” is a clear affirmation of Christ’s authority as deity. If the priests, implementing Jehovah’s business, could work on the sabbath, surely the disciples, operating on behalf of God, the Son, were equally blameless in their conduct.

Third, another argument which justified the disciples’ conduct was Christ’s use of the expression “lord of the sab

bath,” with reference to himself. As an agent in the creation of the uerse (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), certainly Jesus had the authority to regulate the use of the day of rest that followed the creation activity. One aspect of the term “lord” (kurios) signified “one who has full control of something” (F.W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: Uersity of Chicago, 2000, 577). It affirmed that Jesus had the right to exercise “authority over the rules that govern the Sabbath” (J.B. Green, S. McKnight, I.H. Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 1992, 489). Christ actually was contending that he had the authority to determine how the sabbath would be used, because he possessed the very nature of God.

Finally, the Lord argued for the legitimacy of the disciples’ conduct on the ground of the purpose of the sabbath law. It was designed originally for the benefit of man. It was an act of “mercy” from God to grant the Hebrews a respite one day a week – to rest the body and refresh the soul with religious exercises. The sabbath law was never intended to be a slavish regulation that functioned as an “end” within itself. Had the Pharisees recognized this principle, they would never have condemned these “guiltless” disciples of the Savior (Mt. 12:7).

And so, it is quite obvious, when all the facts are considered, that Jesus did not “violate” the sabbath, nor did he sanction the disciples’ violation of that sacred day. Those who take it upon themselves to be public teachers should study carefully before they make such irresponsible statements as that contained in the quotation under review.

 

Freedom (Mark 2:23-3:12)

The Sabbath was cherished by the Jews as a sacred institution. God gave the people of Israel the Sabbath after they came out of Egypt (Ex. 20:8-11; Neh. 9:14), and it was a special sign between Israel and Jehovah (Ex. 31:13-17). There is no record in Scripture that God ever gave the Sabbath to any other nation. So, when Jesus began openly to violate the Sabbath traditions, it was like declaring war against the religious establishment. He began His campaign by healing a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years (John 5), and then followed with the events recorded in this section.

Jewish tradition stated that there were thirty-nine acts that were strictly forbidden on the Sabbath. Moses had prohibited work on the Sabbath, but he did not give many specifics (Ex. 20:10). It was wrong to kindle a fire for cooking (Ex. 35:3), gather fuel (Num. 15:32ff), carry burdens (Jer. 17:21ff), or transact business (Neh. 10:31; 13:15, 19). But Jewish tradition went into great detail and even informed the people how far they could travel on the Sabbath (200 cubits, based on Josh. 3:4). In short, the Sabbath Day had become a crushing burden, a symbol of the galling religious bondage that had captured the nation.

After healing the man at the Pool of Bethesda, our Lord’s next act of “Sabbath defiance” was to walk through the fields on the Sabbath and permit His disciples to pluck the grain, rub it between their hands, and eat it. It was not illegal for a hungry person to take some of his neighbor’s fruit or grain, provided he did not fill a vessel or use a harvesting implement (Deut. 23:24-25). However, that was not what upset the Pharisees. What upset them was that the disciples had worked on the Sabbath Day!

When you read Matthew’s account of this event, you note that Jesus gave three arguments to defend His disciples: what David did (Matt. 12:3-4), what the priests did (Matt. 12:5-6), and what the Prophet Hosea said (Matt. 12:7-8). Mark’s Roman readers would not be interested in Jewish prophets and priests, so Mark focused on David whom the Romans would recognize as a great hero and king. The argument is reasonable: if a hungry king and his men were permitted to eat the holy bread from the tabernacle (1 Sam. 21:1-6), then it was right for the Lord of the Sabbath to permit His men to eat the grain from His fields. David broke a definite law given by Moses, for the showbread was for the priests only (Lev. 24:5-9); but the disciples had violated only a man-made tradition. God is surely more concerned with meeting the needs of people than He is with protecting religious tradition. The Pharisees had their priorities confused.

Did Jesus make a mistake when He mentioned Abiathar as the high priest? The record in 1 Samuel 21 names Abimelech, the father of Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20), as high priest; so our Lord’s words appear to be a contradiction. They are not. It is possible that father and son each had both names (1 Chron. 18:16 and 24:6; 1 Sam. 22:20 and 2 Sam. 8:17). Also it is likely that our Lord used “Abiathar” to refer to the Old Testament passage about Abiathar rather than to the man. This is the way the Jews identified sections of the Word since their manuscripts did not have chapters and verses such as we have today in our Bibles (see Mark 12:26).

On that same Sabbath Day, Jesus went into the synagogue to worship; and while He was there, He deliberately healed a man. Certainly He could have waited one more day, but once again He wanted to challenge the pharisaical legalistic traditions. This time the Pharisees (Luke 6:7) were expecting Him to heal, so they kept their eyes wide open. Our Lord’s questions in Mark 3:4 were never answered by His enemies. Since evil is at work every day, including the Sabbath Day, why should good not be at work as well? Death is always at work, but that should not hinder us from seeking to save life.

Jesus could see “the hardening of their hearts” (literal translation), and their sin made Him angry. Our Lord never became angry at the publicans and sinners, but He did express anger toward the self-righteous Pharisees (Matt. 23). They would rather protect their traditions than see a man healed! The man, of course, knew little about this spiritual conflict. He simply obeyed our Lord’s command, stretched out his hand, and was healed.

So incensed were the Pharisees over what Jesus had done that they united with the Herodians and started making plans to arrest Jesus and destroy Him. The Herodians were not a religious party; they were a group of Jews who were sympathetic to King Herod and supported his rule. Most of the Jews despised Herod and obeyed his laws reluctantly; so it was surprising that the Pharisees, who were strict Jews, would join themselves with these disloyal politicians. But it was a common enemy—Jesus—that brought the two groups together.

In response to this united opposition, Jesus simply withdrew from there; but He could not prevent the great crowds from following Him. These crowds were dangerous to His cause, of course, because they were not spiritually motivated; and the authorities could accuse Him of leading a popular revolt against the Romans. Yet Jesus received the people, healed the sick, and delivered the demonized. Once again, He warned the demons not to reveal who He is (Mark 1:23-26).

Our Lord had now reached a crisis in His ministry. Great crowds were following Him, but their interest was not in things spiritual. The religious leaders wanted to destroy Him, and even some of Herod’s friends were getting involved. His next step would be to spend a night in prayer (Luke 6:12), call twelve men to assist Him as His Apostles, and preach a sermon—The Sermon on the Mount—explaining the spiritual basis of His kingdom.

He offered them forgiveness, fulfillment, and freedom; but they refused His offer.

Have you accepted His offer?

^[1] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 119–124.