In the text today, two accusations are leveled against Jesus by the Pharisees. First, they assert that Jesus “has Beelzebub.” In other words, they argue that he is possessed by the evil one. Second, they maintain that by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons. Jesus is a traitor, pretending to advance the Kingdom of God while really advancing the kingdom of the evil one. Jesus responds to these accusations in reverse order. The second accusation he reveals to be absurd and simultaneously unfolds the real nature of his work – a work of plunder and rescue. Jesus responds to the first accusation by warning the Pharisees that they are in danger of destruction – their obstinacy to the things of God is inexcusable. The interchange helps us understand the true nature of Jesus’ work and the necessity of embracing Him as our only hope.

Again and again Mark wants us to see Jesus as the Greater David, the Son of David, the Anointed One, who has arrived to set up his kingdom. He accomplishes this by organizing the early portion of his narrative around the life of David. Hence, we see Jesus doing many of the same things David did and suffering some of the same trouble as David. In particular, Mark reveals that just as David faced a number of false accusations that were leveled against him as he set up his kingdom so too did Jesus. But even as David was vindicated in the course of his life, Jesus was too. In vindicating himself from the first accusation brought by his family, Jesus reveals the true nature of the family of God and the joy of being His children.

As Jesus has gone about setting up his Kingdom, He has called various men to follow Him. He has called Peter and Andrew. He has called James and John. He has called Levi the tax collector. In chapter 3 the heretofore somewhat informal relationship with these men becomes much more formalized – and others are added to the mix whose names we see for the first time. In chapter 3 Jesus appoints the Twelve Apostles.

There are two issues that must be addressed in dealing with the establishment of the Apostolate. First, why Twelve Apostles? Why not three or four or fourteen? Why twelve? Second, why these particular men? Were they the only men available or did Jesus have some reason for choosing these men?

Answering these questions will lead us to one of the most important issues in biblical theology. What is the relationship between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New? In other words, what is the relationship between Israel and the Church? While answers to this question vary considerably among Christians today, the New Testament is quite clear. And the clarity shows up in all kinds of unsuspecting spots, helping us to understand why we still print our Bibles with Genesis through Malachi attached.

Given that the Sabbath, via the Lord’s Day, is still binding for the people of God, we are in a position to appreciate more fully the controversy that our Lord had with the Pharisees over the Sabbath. Was the Pharisaic understanding and application of the Sabbath to life fundamentally correct or fundamentally askew? Answering these questions will help us to apply the Sabbath commands in our own day more faithfully.

Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees begins with the action of the disciples and the question of the Pharisees and culminates in the question and subsequent action of our Lord. This controversy, like the three preceding it, highlights the authority of Jesus as the Son of Man (cf. 1:22, 27; 2:10) and vindicates His authority over against that of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus is the leader of Israel whom we should follow. How do we know this is the case? Because, in the same way that Jesus vindicated his authority to forgive sins by healing the paralytic, he now vindicates his authority to regulate the Sabbath by healing the man with the withered hand.

Mark takes up the whole issue of the Sabbath in two stories – the first of which addresses the identity of Jesus and His relationship to the Sabbath itself and the second of which addresses the nature of Sabbath observance and how the Sabbath laws are to be applied according to the Lord of the Sabbath.

The last number of Sundays in the Gospel of Mark we have seen Jesus in three separate conflicts with the religious leaders of the day. In each instance Jesus’ ministry is questioned and then vindicated. This pattern of conflict followed by Jesus’ vindication of his ministry continues in two more vignettes that both revolve around the same topic – the Sabbath. Already in his Gospel, Mark has given us a picture of what a typical Sabbath day in the life of our Lord looked like. But now he reveals that Jesus’ observance of the Sabbath didn’t quite fit the Pharisees’ notion of what was acceptable – Jesus didn’t fit into their expectations of Messiah and so conflict ensues once again.

But before we get to a survey of this conflict and Jesus’ triumph, it would be prudent to spend this Lord’s Day discussing the relationship between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. Should we believe that the command to observe a weekly Sabbath continues in the present age? And, if so, in what form does it continue? Answering these questions will help us to profit more fully from the story of Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees because knowing whether or not Sabbath observance continues to be required of the people of God will affect the points of application that we draw from the conflict. So to ask again, should we believe that the command to observe a weekly Sabbath continues in the present age?

In the text today, the disciples of John and of the Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples are not fasting. On the face of it, the question seems rather simple. John’s and the Pharisees’ disciples were fasting – presumably because John and the Pharisees instructed them to do so – but Jesus’ disciples weren’t. So they come to ask a question – what’s up Jesus? Why aren’t your disciples fasting? Why aren’t you teaching them to do so?

The problem that this simple reading confronts is twofold. First, Jesus himself fasted. During his time in the wilderness we are explicitly told that he fasted and we also presume, as a good Jew, that he fasted yearly on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16). The second problem this simple reading faces is that Jesus did teach his disciples to fast. In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, he instructs the disciples to be unlike the hypocrites when they fast and, instead, to anoint themselves with oil so that they fast to God and not to men. In addition, later in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus heals a boy with a mute spirit whom his disciples were unable to heal. When they inquire, “Why couldn’t we heal him?” Jesus responds, “This kind only comes out with prayer and fasting.” This leads us to conclude that not only was Jesus himself fasting (since he did cast out the demon) but that he expected his disciples to fast likewise. We must conclude, then, that the question that Jesus is being asked is not about fasting in general.

If it’s not a question about fasting in general, what is it? We’ll find that the question being posed to Jesus is about a specific series of fasts that were being held in Israel at the time. That this is the type of fasting being considered is evident from Jesus’ response. But in order to understand Jesus’ response, we need to consider the historical background that sets the stage for the question of the disciples of John and the Pharisees. Why was Israel fasting at this time in history? And why weren’t the disciples of Jesus joining in?

Jesus came to earth to deal with sin. But in order to deal with sin, you simply must deal with sinners. What we see in our text is that immediately after substantiating his authority to forgive sins, Jesus proceeds to call sinners, notorious sinners, into his service. Making reconciliation for iniquity and bringing in everlasting righteousness, the things Daniel anticipated that Messiah would do, entails doing something with sinners. And there are only two options. You eliminate sinners either through judgment – destroying them – or through conversion – changing them. In our story today, Jesus shows the primary mode he is interested in – conversion. The purpose of his ministry as the Great Physician is to heal the sick, to call sinners to repentance.

Again and again we have witnessed the OT background that lies behind both Mark’s portrayal of Jesus and Jesus’ own declarations about Himself. As the first portion of Mark’s Gospel endeavors to answer the question, “Who is this Man?,” the text provides us with numerous OT allusions that fill out our understanding of Jesus’ identity. This OT association continues today as Jesus invokes yet another OT image to help his disciples grasp his identity.

Throughout the OT, God identifies Himself as the forgiving God – this is who he is, it is His nature. When God revealed Himself to Moses, He declared:

“The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, [yet] by no means clearing the guilty . . .” (Ex. 34:6,7a)

To forgive the sins of people, in other words, is a divine prerogative. Whenever we sin – whether horizontally or vertically – we always offend God. Consequently, we need to seek His forgiveness.

How did one do that in the OT? Well a couple different ways. First and foremost, one confessed one’s sins to the Lord. Psalm 51 is a perfect example. “Against you, you only, have I sinned, O Lord, and done what is evil in your sight.” David sins with Bathsheba and, after he is confronted, repents and seeks the face of God. But this, while primary, was not the whole story. David, in addition to heartfelt repentance and confession, was required to go before the priests and offer a sacrifice for his sins. After the sacrifice, the priest would formally declare – you are forgiven, your sins are covered. Under the law and the sacrificial system, the priests were given this authority.

In other words, through the establishment of the sacrificial system, God had provided a means of tangibly demonstrating his forgiveness to men. We see this expressed, for instance, in Leviticus 5:10: “And [the guilty party] shall offer the second [sacrifice] as a burnt offering according to the prescribed manner. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin which he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.” The priest was granted authority by God to declare the forgiveness of sins on the basis of evidence of contrition and offering of sacrifice.

As we turn to the healing of the paralytic with this understanding we are equipped to understand why the scribes are so disturbed. What’s the problem in their mind? Quite simply, Jesus wasn’t a priest. He wasn’t from the tribe of Levi. Further, Jesus wasn’t at the temple. There was no blood sacrifice here – no satisfaction. And so the scribes ask – who does this guy think he is? How dare he declare forgiveness when he is not at the temple? When there is no sacrifice going on here? Who gave him authority to do this? The law didn’t give him this authority. The law says that only the priesthood can make such declarations. This man is overthrowing the temple system. He’s establishing something new. How dare he do that?

Our Lord answers this very question in our text today.

The theme of the entire first portion of the Gospel of Mark revolves around the question, “Who is this man Jesus?” The passage today gives us a strong clue to his identity; for, in the history of God’s people, only two people have been capable of healing leprosy – Moses and Elisha, two of the greatest prophets in the history of the OT. So who is Jesus? A prophet? Yes, and more than a prophet. He is the Son of God, the Anointed of God, the Lord God Himself in human flesh. But in this passage he continues to give his disciples clues so they can figure all this out.