Mark 3:1-6

b. Healing On The Sabbath 3:1-6

TEXT 3:1-6

And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had his hand withered. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace, And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:1-6

104.

On what sabbath did this event occur? Please read Luke 6:6before answering.

105.

Just what is meant by a withered hand?

106.

Who was watching Jesus to accuse Him?

107.

Why call the man to stand forth in the midst?

108.

Was the question of Jesus in Mark 3:4 based on scripture? Why ask the question?

109.

In what sense was Jesus angry with the Pharisees?

110.

Please explain in your own words the heart action described in Mark 3:5.

111.

Did the willingness of the cripple relate to the healing? If so, how?

112.

Why the decision to kill Him? Why made at this particular time?

113.

Who were the Herodians?

COMMENT

TIMEEarly Summer A.D. 28although on a different sabbath than the one on which the disciples plucked the grain yet in the same summer.
PLACECapernaumin the synagogue of this city.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMatthew 12:9-14; Luke 6:6-11.

OUTLINE1. The place of the healing, Mark 3:1. Mark 3:2. The critics of the healing, Mark 3:2. Mark 3:3. The man to be healed, Mark 3:3. Mark 3:4. The question of the purpose of healing and the sabbath, Mark 3:4. Mark 3:5. The attitude of Jesus and the healing, Mark 3:5. Mark 3:6. The sad reaction of the healing on those who refused to learn, Mark 3:6.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE PLACE OF THE HEALING, Mark 3:1.

1.

At Capernaum in the synagogue.

2.

In the midst of the Jewish worshippers in the synagogue.

II.

THE CRITICS OF THE HEALING, Mark 3:2.

1.

The Pharisees and perhaps the Herodians.

2.

They were there to spy not to worship or learn.

III.

THE MAN TO BE HEALED, Mark 3:3.

1.

An adult with a hand which was dried up.

2.

He was asked to arise so he could be seen by all in the service.

IV.

THE QUESTION OF THE PURPOSE OF HEALING AND THE SABBATH, Mark 3:4.

1.

Some were worried about the purpose of the sabbathJesus asked if they really knew what should or should not be done on this day?

2.

They refused to answer the obvious question.

V.

THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND THE HEALING, Mark 3:5.

1.

Searching the faces and hearts Jesus was grieved at what He saw.

2.

In the face of opposition and danger Jesus does good on the sabbath by healing.

VI.

THE SAD REACTION OF THE HEALING ON THOSE WHO REFUSED TO LEARN, Mark 3:6.

1.

Left with their minds made up.

2.

Immediately agreed with their enemies to destroy Jesus.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE PLACE OF HEALING, Mark 3:1.

Mark 3:1. And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

Mark records another charge of Sabbath-breaking, probably to show how various were the outward occasions of such opposition; to illustrate the variety of Christ's defenses; and mark the first concerted plan for his destruction. Again, that is, on a different occasion from the one referred to in Mark 3:21. The synagogue, most probably the one there mentioned, which was in Capernaum. Here, as in Mark 3:23, the absence of any more specific note of time shows that exact chronological order was of small importance to the author's object. There is somewhat more precision as to this point in the parallel accounts of Luke (Luke 6:11) and Matthew (Matthew 12:9). There is no ground in the text of either gospel for the conjecture of some writers, that the presence of this sufferer had been contrived in order to entrap Christ. The constant application for his healing aid precludes the necessity of such supposition, and indeed suggests that this was only one of many miracles performed at this time, and is recorded in detail on account of its important bearing on the progress of Christ's ministry. Withered, literally, dried or dried up, elsewhere applied to liquids (Mark 5:29. Revelation 16:12), and to plants (Mark 4:6, Mark 11:20. James 1:11), but also to the pining away of the human body. The passive participle adds to the meaning of the adjective (dry) employed by Matthew and Luke, the idea that it was not a congenital infirmity, but the effect of disease or accident, the more calamitous because it was the right hand that was thus disabled (Luke 6:6). A similar affliction, preternaturally caused, was that of Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:4-6).

II.

THE CRITICS OF THE HEALING, Mark 3:2.

Mark 3:2. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath-day; that they might accuse him.

We have here a striking indication that the opposition to our Saviour was becoming more inveterate and settled, so that his enemies not only censured what he did, but watched for some occasion to find fault with him. Watched, i, e, closely or intently, as suggested by the compound form of the Greek verb, both here and in Acts 9:24. Whether he would, literally, if he will, a form of speech which represented the scene as actually passing. The motive of their watching was not simply curiosity, but a deliberate desire to entrap him. That they might accuse him, not in conversation merely, but before the local judges, who were probably identical with the elders or rulers of the synagogue, or at all events present at the stated time and place of public worship. The subject of the verb is not expressed by Mark and Matthew, although easily supplied from the foregoing context (Mark 2:24. Matthew 12:2), and from the parallel account in Luke (Luke 6:7), where the scribes and Pharisees are expressly mentioned.

III.

THE MAN TO BE HEALED, Mark 3:3.

Mark 3:3. And be saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth!

This direction to the patient is placed by Matthew (Matthew 12:13) after the address to his accusers, but without asserting that it was not given sooner, as would seem to be the case from the accounts of Mark and Luke, who represent it as a sort of preparation for the subsequent discourse, which would be rendered more impressive by the sight of the man standing in the midst, i.e. among them, and no doubt in a conspicuous position, but not necessarily in the exact center of the house or assembly. This phrase is omitted in our version, or included in the phrase stand forth. The Greek verb is the same with that in Mark 1:31, Mark 2:9, Mark 11:12, and strictly means to rouse another or one's self, especially from sleep, (Compare Matthew 8:25. Luke 8:24.)

IV.

THE QUESTION OF THE PURPOSE OF HEALING AND THE SABBATH, Mark 3:4.

Mark 3:4. And he saith unto them. Is it unlawful to do good on the sabbath-days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? but they held their peace.

Before proceeding to perform the miracle, he appeals to them as to the question of its lawfulness, retorting the same question which they had already put to him (Matthew 12:10), as if he had said, -answer your own question; I will leave it to yourselves, and will abide by your decision, not however as expressed in words alone, but in your actions-' (Matthew 12:11-12). Is it lawful, not right in itself, but consistent with the law of Moses, and with your acknowledged obligation to obey it. To do good and to do evil may, according to etymology and usage, mean to do right and to do wrong in the general (1 Peter 3:16-17. 3 John 1:11), or to do good and to injure in particular (Acts 14:17). On the former supposition the meaning of the sentence is, -You will surely admit that it is lawful to do right in preference to wrong on the Sabbath, as on any other day.-' But as this is little more than an identical proposition, or at least an undisputed truism (namely) that what is right is lawful), most interpreters prefer the other explanation, according to which our Lord is not asserting a mere truism, which his hearers were as ready to acknowledge as himself, but pointing out their obvious mistake as to the nature of the action which they had condemned beforehand. Stripped of its interrogative form, the sentence contains two distinct but consecutive propositions. The first is that it must be lawful, even on the Sabbath, to confer a favor or to do a kindness, when the choice lies between that and the doing of an injury. Even if not absolutely lawful, it would certainly become so in the case of such an alternative. The next proposition is that this rule, which is true in general, is emphatically true when the alternative is that of life and death. To this may be added, as a tacit influence, not formally deduced, but left to be drawn by the hearers for themselves, that such a case was that before them, in which to refuse help was virtually to destroy. This is not to be strictly understood as meaning that unless the withered hand were healed at once the man would die, but as exemplifying that peculiar method of presenting extreme cases, which is one of the most marked characteristics of our Saviour's teaching. As in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, he instructs us what we must be prepared to do in an extreme case, thus providing for all others; so here he exhibits the conclusion, to which their reasoning naturally tended, as a proof that it must be erroneous. If the rest of the Sabbath was not only a divine requisition, but an intrinsic, absolute necessity, to which all human interests must yield, this could be no less true in an extreme case than in any other, so that life itself must be sacrificed to it. This revolting conclusion could be avoided only by admitting that the obligation of the Sabbath rested on authority, and might by that authority be abrogated or suspended. This implies that such authority belonged to him, that he was not acting as a mere man, or a prophet, but as the Son of man, and as such lord of the Sabbath; so that, although his answer upon this occasion is in form quite different from that before recorded, it amounts to the same thing, and proceeds upon the same essential principle. Thus understood, the sentence may be paraphrased as follows: -You consider me a breaker of the law, because I heal upon the Sabbath; but you must admit that where the choice is between doing good and evil, for example, between saving life and killing upon that day, we are bound to choose the former. There is therefore some limit or exception to the obligation which you urge upon yourselves and others, not indeed to be decided by your own discretion or caprice, but by the same authority which first imposed it. Now that authority I claim to exercise, a claim abundantly attested by the very miracles on which your charge is founded, for no man can do such things unless God be with him.-' (Compare John 3:2.)

V.

THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND THE HEALING, Mark 3:5.

Mark 3:5. 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.

We have here an instance of what some regard as characteristic of this gospel, and ascribe to Peter's influence upon it, to wit, the occasional description of our Saviour's feelings, looks and gestures, most of which details we owe exclusively to Mark. Three such particulars are here recorded, one external, two internal. Looking round upon (or at) them is an act mentioned by Luke also (Mark 6:10), with the addition of the strong word all. But Mark tells what feelings were expressed by this act, or at least accompanied it. One was anger, a passion belonging to our original constitution, and as such not sinful in itself, and therefore shared by the humanity of Christ, in whom it was a holy indignation or intense displeasure at what really deserves it, unalloyed by that excess or that malignity which renders human anger almost always sinful. The absence of the quality last named in this case is apparent from the other feeling mentioned, that of grief or sorrow. Grieved with is in Greek a compound verb, admitting of two explanations, one of which makes the particle in composition refer to the anger previously mentioned, being grieved (in conjunction or at the same time) with that anger. But the classical usage of such writers as Plato. Theophrastus, Diodorus, is in favour of referring the particle in question, not to the anger, but to those who caused it, so as to express a sympathetic sorrow. Looking round with anger and yet grieving (sympathizing) with them. In the very act of condemning their sin, he pitied the miserable state to which it had reduced them. The specific object of this sympathetic grief or pity was the hardness of their heart, including intellectual stupidity and insensibility of feeling. The first Greek word is less exactly rendered blindness in the margin of our Bible, and in the text of Romans 11:25. Ephesians 4:18. But the figure, although not suggested by the Greek word, is expressive of two things which it denotes, a state of mental and spiritual apathy or insensibility. There is here no mention of external contact (as in Mark 1:31; Mark 1:41), nor of any other order or command than that to stretch out the hand, which could only be obeyed when the miracle was wrought, and is therefore not required as a previous condition. This is often and justly used to illustrate the act of faith, which is performed in obedience to divine command and by the aid of the same power which requires it. Whole (or sound) as the other, though expunged in this place by the critics as a mere assimilation to Matthew 12:13 (compare Luke 6:10), may be used to illustrate Mark's laconic phrase, in which it is really implied.

VI.

THE SAD REACTION OF THE HEALING ON THOSE WHO REFUSED TO LEARN, Mark 3:6.

Mark 3:6. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

One of the most important circumstances of this case, for the sake of which it was perhaps recorded (see Mark 3:1), is the effect which it produced upon the Pharisees or High-Church Jewish party, whose religious tenets brought them into constant opposition to the Sadducees or latitudinarians, as their political or national exclusiveness arrayed them against the Herodians or followers of Herod, and as such defenders of the Roman domination, of which the Herods were the instruments and agents. Herod the Great, created king by the Romans, and enabled by their aid to take possession of his kingdom, was devoted to their service both from interest and inclination; and although upon his death his dominions were divided, and his eldest son Archelaus had been superseded in Judea by Roman procurators, two other sons of Herod were still reigning (Luke 3:1), Antipas in Galilee, Samaria, and Perea, and Philip in Trachonitis and Iturea. Even in Judea, the Herodian interest and party still existed, as the most extreme political antithesis to that of he Pharisees. It is therefore a clear proof of growing hatred to our Saviour, that these opposite extremes should now begin to coalesce for his destruction, an alliance which appears to have continued till its object was accomplished. Going out (from the synagogue) immediately, as soon as the miracle was wrought, and therefore in full view of the proof which it afforded of our Lord's divine legation; a conclusive confirmation of that hardness and judicial blindness which had excited his own grief and anger. Took counsel is a phrase peculiar to Matthew (Matthew 12:14; Matthew 22:15; Matthew 27:1; Matthew 28:12), Mark's equivalent to which is made counsel, i.e. consultation. How they might destroy him, not for any past offenses, but how they might take advantage of his words or acts to rid them of so dangerous an enemy. The motives of this concerted opposition were no doubt various, religious, political, and personal, in different degrees and cases. That it should have been deliberately organized, at this time, out of such discordant elements and in the face of such conclusive evidence, can only be ascribed to the infatuation under which they acted (Luke 6:11). (J. A, Alexander)

FACT QUESTIONS 3:1-6.

130.

What possible purposes were there in the record of Mark of the Sabbath healing?

131.

Was the cripple planted there to entrap Christ? Prove your answer.

132.

How did the man come to have a withered hand?

133.

In what manner and in what attitude did the Pharisees watch Jesus?

134.

How would the accusations of the enemies of Jesus be carried out?

135.

At what particular time in the action did Jesus ask the man to stand forth? What is meant by Stand forth?

136.

Why did Jesus ask the question of Mark 2:4? Cf. Matthew 12:10.

137.

Was our Lord stating a truism?

138.

If this was not a truism what two propositions were involved in the statement?

139.

In what reference do some see the influence of Peter upon the writer Mark?

140.

How could Jesus look upon certain persons with anger and yet not sin?

141.

With whom was Jesus grieved? I thought He was angry with them? Explain.

142.

What was included in the expression hardness of heart?

143.

Was there any act of faith on the part of the man healed? Explain.

144.

How does Mark 2:6 indicate the purpose for Mark 2:1-6?

145.

Who were the Herodians? Why did the Pharisees want their help?

SIDELIGHTS 2:23-28

We see from these verses, what extravagant importance is attached to trifles by those who are mere formalists in religion.
The Pharisees were mere formalists, if there ever were any in the world. They seem to have thought exclusively of the outward part, the husk, the shell, and the ceremonial of religion. They even added to these externals by traditions of their own. Their godliness was made up of washings and fastings and peculiarities in dress and will-worship, while repentance and faith and holiness were comparatively overlooked.
The Pharisees would probably have found no fault if the disciples had been guilty of some offense against the moral law. They would have winked at covetousness, or perjury, or extortions, or excess, because they were sins to which they themselves were inclined.
We see, in the second place, from these verses, the value of a knowledge of Holy Scripture.
Our Lord replies to the accusation of the Pharisees by a reference to Holy Scripture. He reminds His enemies of the conduct of David, when he had need and was an hungered. Have ye never read what David did? They could not deny that the writer of the book of Psalms, and the man after God's own heart, was not likely to set a bad example.
Let us observe in these verses, how our Lord Jesus Christ was watched by His enemies. We read that they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath Day, that they might accuse Him.

What a melancholy proof we have here of the wickedness of human nature! It was the Sabbath Day when these things happened. It was in the synagogue, where men were assembled to hear the Word and worship God. Yet even on the day of God, and at the time of worshipping God, these wretched formalists were plotting mischief against our Lord. The very men who pretended to such strictness and sanctity in little things, were full of malicious and angry thoughts in the midst of the congregation. (Proverbs 5:14).

Let us observe, in the last place, the feelings which the conduct of our Lord's enemies called forth in His heart. We are told that He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.

This expression is very remarkable, and demands special attention. It is meant to remind us that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Whatever sinless feelings belong to the constitution of man, our Lord partook of, and knew by experience. We read that He marvelled, that He rejoiced, that He wept, that He loved,-' and here we read that He felt anger.

It is plain from these words that there is an anger which is lawful, right, and not sinful. There is an indignation which is justifiable, and on some occasions may be properly manifested. The words of Solomon and St. Paul both seem to teach the same lesson. The north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue. Be ye angry and sin not. (Proverbs 25:23; Ephesians 4:26). (J. C. Ryle)

LESSONS

1.

Jesus did not remove Himself or His disciples from the ordinary course of lifeit was in the grain field and the synagogue He taught His lessons.

2.

Jesus never ate the grainwhereas He defended the actions of His disciples He was above reproachso should the teacher be.

3.

The sabbath was indeed made for manfor the Jewish man in Palestinethere are numerous persons who could not observe it because of the length of the day in the area where they livemost of all because God commanded no one but the Jews to observe it. Cf. Deuteronomy 5:15.

4.

How many withered hands do we have in the church today? Jesus is commanding them to stand forth and be healed.

6.

We can expect some people to intentionally misunderstand and misinterpret all the good we do. A servant is not above His Master:

POINTS FOR TEACHERS

1.

How many of the Ten Commandments are reproduced in the New Testament? Give references.

2.

Is there any commandment in the New Testament to observe the Lord's Day? Why do we observe it?

3.

Make a contrast between the sabbath and the Lord's Day.

4.

Name some things we should do on Sunday.

5.

Is it right to keep drug stores and other stores open on Sunday?

6.

If a man works all day on Sunday and gives what he earns on that day to the Lord's work, does that excuse him for working?

7.

What are some of the things causing the American people to misuse the Lord's Day?

8.

Show how the forces of evil today are united.

9.

Show how the forces of good are divided.

10.

What is the unpardonable sin?