Here is the text I will be working out of for Sunday 11/11/12. I welcome your thoughts questions and perspectives. #opensourcesermonprep

WHAT? Mark 3:1-6

Text Comparison – Mark 3:1–6

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update The NET Bible The New International Version New Living Translation The Message
Mk 3:1He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was withered. Mk 3:1Then Jesus entered the synagogue again, and a man was there who had a withered hand. Mk 3:1Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Mk 3:1Jesus went into the synagogue again and noticed a man with a deformed hand. Mk 3:1Then he went back in the meeting place where he found a man with a crippled hand.
2They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. 2They watched Jesus closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they could accuse him. 2Some 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. 2Since it was the Sabbath, Jesus’ enemies watched him closely. If he healed the man’s hand, they planned to accuse him of working on the Sabbath. 2The Pharisees had their eyes on Jesus to see if he would heal him, hoping to catch him in a Sabbath infraction.
3He *said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” 3So he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Stand up among all these people.” 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” 3Jesus said to the man with the deformed hand, “Come and stand in front of everyone.” 3He said to the man with the crippled hand, “Stand here where we can see you.”
4And He *said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. 4Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath, or evil, to save a life or destroy it?” But they were silent. 4Then 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. 4Then he turned to his critics and asked, “Does the law permit good deeds on the Sabbath, or is it a day for doing evil? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?” But they wouldn’t answer him. 4Then he spoke to the people: “What kind of action suits the Sabbath best? Doing good or doing evil? Helping people or leaving them helpless?” No one said a word.
5After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He *said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 5After looking around at them in anger, grieved by the hardness of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 5He 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. 5He looked around at them angrily and was deeply saddened by their hard hearts. Then he said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” So the man held out his hand, and it was restored! 5He looked them in the eye, one after another, angry now, furious at their hard-nosed religion. He said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” He held it out—it was as good as new!
6The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. 6So the Pharisees went out immediately and began plotting with the Herodians, as to how they could assassinate him. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. 6At once the Pharisees went away and met with the supporters of Herod to plot how to kill Jesus. 6The Pharisees got out as fast as they could, sputtering about how they would join forces with Herod’s followers and ruin him.


  • What kind of writing are we studying ?

Redemptive history:

  • Where is it in relation to the Graeme Goldsworthy list below? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
  • How does this passage support this period in redemptive history?


  • What is the passage about? Look at its context and surrounding text.

Mt 12:9–14 || Mk 3:1–6 || Lk 6:6–11


  • What are the ideas in the passage?
  • Anger
  • Anger of Jesus
  • Anger of man
  • Capernaum
  • Conspiracy, Instances of
  • False teachers
  • Hand
  • Hardness of heart
  • Health Care
  • Herodians
  • Impenitence
  • Jesus, The Christ, History of
  • Jesus, The Christ, Miracles of
  • Miracles of the Bible
  • New Testament as Literature
  • Persecution, Of Jesus
  • Political and Religious Groups

Key Words:

  • Identify the natural divisions (paragraphs and sentences) of the text.
  • Original word meanings
  • Connecting Words of the text/ (how do they aid in understanding the authors progression of thought)
  • Notes for  3:1

1 tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

2 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

3 sn See the note on synagogue in 1:21.

4 sn Withered means the man’s hand was shrunken and paralyzed.

  • Notes for  3:2

5 sn The term translated watched…closely is emotive, since it carries negative connotations. It means they were watching him out of the corner of their eye or spying on him.

6 tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

7 sn The background for this is the view that only if life was endangered should one attempt to heal on the Sabbath (see the Mishnah, m. Shabbat 6.3; 12.1; 18.3; 19.2; m. Yoma 8.6).

  • Notes for  3:3

8 tn Grk “Stand up in the middle.”

sn Most likely synagogues were arranged with benches along the walls and open space in the center for seating on the floor.

  • Notes for  3:4

9 tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

  • Notes for  3:5

10 tn The aorist participle περιβλεψάμενος (periblepsamenos) has been translated as antecedent (prior) to the action of the main verb. It could also be translated as contemporaneous (“Looking around…he said”).

11 tn This term is a collective singular in the Greek text.

12 sn The passive was restored points to healing by God. Now the question became: Would God exercise his power through Jesus, if what Jesus was doing were wrong? Note also Jesus’ “labor.” He simply spoke and it was so.

  • Notes for  3:6

13 tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous action(s) in the narrative.

14 sn See the note on Pharisees in 2:16.

15 tn Grk inserts “against him” after “Herodians.” This is somewhat redundant in English and has not been translated.

sn The Herodians are mentioned in the NT only once in Matt (22:16 = Mark 12:13) and twice in Mark (3:6; 12:13; some mss also read “Herodians” instead of “Herod” in Mark 8:15). It is generally assumed that as a group the Herodians were Jewish supporters of the Herodian dynasty (or of Herod Antipas in particular). In every instance they are linked with the Pharisees. This probably reflects agreement regarding political objectives (nationalism as opposed to submission to the yoke of Roman oppression) rather than philosophy or religious beliefs.

16 tn Grk “destroy.”

Basic Search for Mark 3:1-6

  • ξηραίνω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK3830  (2×)

corn, Rev 14:15; to be withered, to wither, Mk 11:20; of parts of the body, to be withered, Mk 3:1, 3; to pine, Mk 9:18 [3583] See dry up; scorch; wither.

  • συλλυπέω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK5200

συλλυπέω syllypeō 1x Mk 3:5* [4818]

  • Ἡρῳδιανοί  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK2477

Ἡρῳδιανοί hērōidianoi 3x partisans of Ἡρῴδης, Herod Antipas, Mt 22:16; Mk 3:6; 12:13* [2265]

  • πώρωσις  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK4801

πώρωσις pōrōsis 3x met. hardness of heart, callousness, insensibility, Mk 3:5; Rom 11:25; Eph 4:18* [4457]

  • κακοποιέω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK2803

κακοποιέω kakopoieō 4x Mk 3:4; Lk 6:9; to do evil, commit sin, 1 Pet. 3:17; 3 Jn. 11* [2554]

also spelled ἀποκαθιστάνω, to restore a thing to its former place or state, Mt 12:13; 17:11; Mk 3:5; 8:25 [600] See restore, restoration.

  • παρατηρέω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK4190

παρατηρέω paratēreō 6x Acts 9:24; to observe or watch insidiously, Mk 3:2; Lk 6:7; 14:1; 20:20; to observe scrupulously, Gal 4:10* [3906]

  • περιβλέπω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK4315

περιβλέπω periblepō 7x trans. to look around upon, Mk 3:5, 34; 11:11; Lk 6:10; absol. to look around, Mk 5:32; 9:8; 10:23* [4017]

  • συμβούλιον  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK5206

συμβούλιον symboulion 8x Mt 12:14; 22:15; 27:1, 7; 28:12; Mk 3:6; Acts 27:1, 7; 28:12; a council of counsellors, Acts 25:12* [4824]

  • ὀργή  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK3973

mental bent, impulse; anger, indignation, wrath, Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; μετʼ ὀργῆς, indignantly, Mk 3:5; vengeance, punishment, Mt 3:7; Lk 3:7; 21:23; Rom 13:4, 5 [3709] See anger; wrath.

  • ἔξεστιν  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK2003

ἔξειμι (#1997) used impersonally, it is possible; it is permitted, it is lawful, Mt 12:2, 4; Mk 3:4; Lk 6:9; Acts 22:25; 1 Cor. 6:12 [1832] See lawful; (to be) permitted.

  • σιωπάω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK4995

σιωπάω siōpaō 10x Mt 20:31; 26:63; Mk 3:4; 9:34; 10:48; 14:61; Lk 19:40; Acts 18:9; σιωπῶν, silent, dumb, Lk 1:20; met. to be silent, still, hushed, calm, as the sea, Mk 4:39* [4623] See…

  • μέσος  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK3545

Cor. 6:5; διὰ μέσου, through the midst of, Lk 4:30; εἰς τὸ μέσον, into, or in the midst, Mk 3:3; Lk 6:8; ἐκ μέσου, from the midst, out of the way, Col 2:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; from the Hebrew…

  • ψυχή  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK6034

ψυχή psychē 103x Mt 2:20; 6:25; Mk 3:4; Lk 21:19; Jn 10:11; an inanimate being, 1 Cor. 15:45; a human individual, soul, Acts 2:41; 3:23; 7:14; 27:37; Rom 13:1; 1 Pet. 3:20; the immaterial…

  • Sabbath  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  p 607  (2×)

of corn is banned (Mk 2:23–28), helping the sick is allowed only in life or death situations (3:1), the body of Jesus is buried before the Sabbath (15:42), the Sabbath is a day of rest (Lk 23…

  • σῴζω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK5392

to health, Mt 9:21, 22; Mk 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; to save, preserve from being lost, Mt 16:25; Mk 3:4; 8:35; σῴζειν ἀπό, to deliver from, set free from, Mt 1:21; Jn 12:27; Acts 2:40; in NT to

  • Lose  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  p 423

to be destroyed. It can refer to physical destruction in the sense of killing (Mt 2:13; 12:14; Mk 3:6; 9:22; 12:9). It can also signify the destruction meted out in divine judgment (Jas 4:12; Jude…

  • Restore, Restoration  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  p 586

in connection with Jesus’ miracles, in which Jesus “restores” a person to wholeness (Mt 12:13; Mk 3:5; 8:25). (2) apokathistēmâ also occurs with regard to the hope that Jesus came to restore not…

  • Stretch Out  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  p 690

5:13). The man with a shriveled hand “stretched it out” to Jesus and it was healed (Mt 12:13; Mk 3:5; Lk 6:10). Jesus “stretched out his hand” to point to his spiritual family, those who do the…

  • Four  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  p 270

literally and symbolically. (1) In a numeric sense, the paralytic was carried by four men (Mk 3:2). Lazarus had been in the tomb four days, hence the objection that there would surely be a…

  • ποιέω  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  GGK4472

fight, Rev 11:7; συμβούλιον ποιεῖν, i.q. συμβουλεύεσθαι, to consult together, deliberate, Mk 3:6; συνωμοσίαν ποιεῖν, i.q. συνομνύναι, and συστροφὴν ποιεῖν, i.q. συστρέφεσθαι, to

  • Quiet  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  p 556

the human voice, siōpaō describes those who “remain silent” before accusations or questions (Mk 3:4; 9:4). Notice especially how Jesus “remained silent” before his accusers (Mt 26:62; Mk 14:61…

  • Anger  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words  p 22

who is angry, such as Jesus’ anger at the lack of concern and legalism of the Jewish leaders (Mk 3:5). In several places the NT instructs believers not to be given to anger (Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; 1…

Cultural / historic Context of passage:


Healing or Killing on the Sabbath

3:1. The muscles and nerves of a “dried” or “withered” hand were inactive; thus the hand, smaller than usual, did not function (1 Kings 13:4; cf. Testament of Simeon 2:12). No cure was known for this paralysis.

3:2. In the teachings of Jewish legal scholars, minor cures were not permitted on the sabbath, although saving a life was a different matter. (Even the strictest observers of the sabbath allowed compromising the sabbath to save life or to fight in a defensive war.) The rule against cures applied to physicians, however, not to healings wrought by God, and Pharisees disputed among themselves whether prayer for the sick was permitted on the sabbath. Jesus’ opponents are therefore going considerably beyond standard Jewish rules to try to convict him.

3:3–5. Jesus might mean that “killing” is permitted on the sabbath, as it was during the Maccabean warfare (second century b.c.); more likely he draws a legal analogy from the principle that one could violate the sabbath to save life but not to kill except in self-defense; by extension, one could do good but not harm. (A possible allusion to 2 Kings 5:7 is less likely.)

3:6. Unintentional violations of the sabbath or issues of disagreement about what constituted work (matters that were debatable in Jewish courts) were normally treated lightly; capital punishment (Ex 31:14; 35:2) was thought appropriate only for those who willfully rejected the sabbath. Jesus’ opponents go far beyond their own traditional teachings here. On the Herodians see comment on 12:13.(The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament, Keener, Craig S.)

Healing on the Sabbath (3:1–6)

Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there (3:1). The man with the shriveled hand would have stood out in the synagogue when the congregation rose and lifted their hands in prayer. A shriveled hand is frequently understood to be the punishment of God.74 Jeroboam’s hand “dried up” when he tried to take action against the rebellious prophets (1 Kings 13:4–6), and it was healed only after he pleaded that the prophet pray for his restoration.

They watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath (3:2). Jesus makes the man the center of attention by calling him forward and healing him. This healing violates the Pharisees’ interpretation that disallows minor cures on the Sabbath.75 Rabbi Shammai was so strict that he is reported even to have opposed praying for the sick or visiting the sick on the Sabbath, since it conflicted with the day’s character as one marked by joy.76 All the later rabbis agreed that danger to life overrode the Sabbath; they only disagreed over the scriptural basis for this conclusion.77 Since this man with a withered hand is not in a life or death situation, the opponents assume that he can and should wait for a cure.

But how does Jesus violate the Sabbath? He prepares no ointments and lifts nothing; he simply speaks. The text assumes that if this man’s healing were not in accord with God’s will, he would not have been healed. Jesus uses the healing to make the point that the Sabbath can become an occasion to do good rather than simply a time not to do work. Why should this man have to wait a day for help when the power to heal him is available now? The point: God did not send the Messiah to observe the Sabbath but to save life.

The Herodians (3:6). The precise identity of the Herodians (see also 12:13) is hazy. Most assume that they were supporters of the Herodian rule. In Galilee, they would be partisans of Herod Antipas and consequently influential. Economically and religiously they were comparable to the Sadducees, who had been pro-Hasmonean. Their agenda was less motivated by religious fervor than a concern to maintain the social and political status quo, which religion nicely abetted.

Others have guessed that “Herodians” was a tag that the common people gave to the Essenes. Josephus tells the story of an Essene teacher who won the favor of Herod the Great as a young boy by greeting him as king of the Jews and predicting a happy reign.78 They became the favored religious party during his rule, inhabiting the Essene quarter in the southwest corner of Jerusalem.79

(Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Volume 1)

The Jewish sabbath, the seventh day of the week, was a regular reminder both of creation (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:8–11) and of the Exodus (Deuteronomy 5:15). Along with circumcision and the food laws, it was one of the badges of Jewish identity within the pagan world of late antiquity, and a considerable body of Jewish law and custom grew up around its observance.
Pharisees, legal experts, lawyers, rabbis

The Pharisees were an unofficial but powerful Jewish pressure group through most of the first centuries bc and ad. Largely lay-led, though including some priests, their aim was to purify Israel through intensified observance of the Jewish law (Torah), developing their own traditions about the precise meaning and application of scripture, their own patterns of prayer and other devotion, and their own calculations of the national hope. Though not all legal experts were Pharisees, most Pharisees were thus legal experts.

They effected a democratization of Israel’s life, since for them the study and practice of Torah was equivalent to worshipping in the Temple—though they were adamant in pressing their own rules for the Temple liturgy on an unwilling (and often Sadducean) priesthood. This enabled them to survive ad 70 and, merging into the early Rabbinic movement, to develop new ways forward. Politically they stood up for ancestral traditions, and were at the forefront of various movements of revolt against both pagan overlordship and compromised Jewish leaders. By Jesus’ day there were two distinct schools, the stricter one of Shammai, more inclined towards armed revolt, and the more lenient one of Hillel, ready to live and let live.

Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees are at least as much a matter of agenda and policy (Jesus strongly opposed their separatist nationalism) as about details of theology and piety. Saul of Tarsus was a fervent right-wing Pharisee, presumably a Shammaite, until his conversion.

After the disastrous war of ad 66–70, these schools of Hillel and Shammai continued bitter debate on appropriate policy. Following the further disaster of ad 135 (the failed Bar-Kochba revolt against Rome) their traditions were carried on by the rabbis who, though looking to the earlier Pharisees for inspiration, developed a Torah-piety in which personal holiness and purity took the place of political agendas. (N.T. Wright)

Herodians hi-roh’dee-uhnz (Ἡρῳδιανοί G2477). A party, mentioned in the Gospels, who cooperated with the Pharisees on two different occasions in opposition to Jesus (Mk. 3:6; 12:13 [= Matt. 22:16]). Composed of the name Herod and a common suffix, the term designates partisans of Herod the Great or his dynasty. The Herodians are named only in Matthew and Mark. Josephus uses the term Hērōdeiōn (War 1.16.6) and elsewhere speaks of tous ta Hērōdou phronountas, (lit., “those who mind the things of Herod”), referring to those who were favorable to Herod the Great before he became master of the whole country (Ant. 15.15.6), but it is doubtful that the party alluded to by Josephus should be identified with the group mentioned in the NT.

Although the NT designation evidently refers to adherents of a Herod or of the Herodian dynasty, a more specific identification is a matter of conjecture, and varied suggestions concerning them have been made: soldiers of Herod; courtiers of Herod; Jews belonging to the northern tetrarchies ruled by sons of Herod; supporters of Jewish aspirations for a national kingdom who favored Herodian rule versus direct Roman rule; political supporters of Antipas. Of these, the last is most probable and receives wide support. F. C. Grant (in IB, 7:683) suggests that they were “members of the Herodian party, satellites of the tetrarch Antipas, royalists who hoped for a restoration of the Herodian monarchy.” Unlike the Pharisees, they were not a religious party but rather a political group concerned with the interests of the Herodian dynasty. Theologically, their membership doubtless cut across recognized party lines. They may have had Sadducean proclivities, but the Gospels never suggest that the Herodians are to be equated with the Sadducees. That Matt. 16:6 substitutes “Saducees” for “Herod” in Mk. 8:15 (a few mss read “Herodians”) does not establish the identity; Matthew simply omits the reference to Herod or the Herodians and names another group.

The Herodians in the gospel accounts first appear in Galilee, where they joined with the Pharisees against Jesus to attempt to destroy him (Mk. 3:6; cf. Matt. 12:14, which omits them). The politically minded Herodians would be interested with the ecclesiastical Pharisees in preserving the status quo. During passion week they joined with the Pharisees in seeking to trap Jesus on the question of paying tribute (Mk. 12:13; cf. Matt. 22:17). F. V. Filson (A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew [1960], 234) suggests that the Herodians as supporters of Antipas were “in Jerusalem to forestall the supposed revolutionary tendencies of Jesus”; however, they would naturally have been in Jerusalem for the Passover. (See further B. W. Bacon in JBL 39 [1920]: 102–12; E. J. Bickerman in RB 47 [1938]: 184–97; H. H. Rowley in JTS 41 [1940]: 14–27; W. Bennett in NovT 17 [1975: 9–14;.)

D. E. Hiebert


Persons: Who is mentioned here?

Group Description In the Bible In Josephus
Herodians A Jewish political party who sympathized with the rulers in the Herodian dynasty. Matt 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13 J.W. 1.319; Ant. 14.450
  • Man with a withered hand
  • Pharisees
  • Jesus

Action: Who is doing what?  What is happening?


Purpose: What was the writer / speaker trying to achieve

Reasons: Are any reasons suggested?


Arena: Is there any indication where something happens



Events: …or when something happened?


Method: …or how something happens?

Check for CONSISTENCY with the rest of scripture and theologians.

Refer to commentaries, Study Bibles, Bible Dictionaries, etc

Some simple non technical rescources…
The scribes believe that healing is a form of work and is thus not permitted on a Sabbath. Accuse (Gk. katēgoreō, “accuse, bring charges”) is a technical term: they seek to mount a legal case against Jesus by collecting evidence against him.

3:3–5 Jesus is not intimidated by his opponents; he makes the Sabbath healing (cf. v. 2) an intentionally public incident. they were silent. The silence of the opponents displays their hardness of heart, and Jesus’ anger shows that his question, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm …?” should have been answered: “to do good.” This would not violate the OT law, but it would violate the opponents’ extrabiblical, mostly Pharisaic tradition. Their tradition misses the point of the Mosaic law: to love God and one’s neighbor (cf. 12:29–31). Stretch out your hand. See note on Luke 6:10.

3:6 The Pharisees were quite different from the Herodians (supporters and associates of Herod Antipas of Galilee and the Herodian family dynasty; see note on Matt. 22:16). However, these two groups held counsel together (cf. Ps. 2:2) in order to destroy their common enemy, Jesus (Mark 14:1–2).

3:1–6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1–12).

3:1–2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1–2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.

3:3–4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10–17). • To destroylife may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32–41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (3:5).

3:5–6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1–2, 10–11).

(D.A. Carson)
3:1–6 The maimed man (see Mt. 12:9–14; Lk. 6:6–11).
Jesus’ opponents found another chance to accuse him of disregarding the Sabbath when he healed a crippled man, for whom they do not seem to have felt any pity. Healing on Sabbath was only allowed by the rabbis in cases of life and death, and this was clearly not one of them. Jesus made no attempt to avoid the trap, as he could have done. Instead, he called the man to stand before them all and asked a question which went right to the heart of the issue. Clearly to leave such a man unhealed, when Jesus had the power to heal him, was to do evil. To do good on the Sabbath by healing the man was obviously the right course of action, and surely the Sabbath law did not forbid it? (The second half of Jesus’ question, ‘to save life or to kill’ is only a stronger way of saying the same thing.) The Pharisees could not reply without condemning themselves, so they remained silent. Mark records that Jesus was angry as well as grieved at their stubbornness of heart. As this is one of the very few occasions when Mark records Jesus’ anger, it is important to see what caused it.

The healing of this man on Sabbath was the moment when two most unlikely allies, the Pharisees and Herodians, decided to get rid of Jesus and began to plot how they might kill him. If we do not believe in Jesus, then we must finally crucify him. Mark warns us of this choice right from the start of his gospel. The Pharisees were the ‘religious fundamentalists’ of their day, while the Herodians, unknown outside Mark, seem to have been a secular party, supporting the Herodian dynasty. This was a combination of cynicism and political opportunism, one that is often seen in the world where there is opposition to the gospel. The enemy will use any tools that he can.

What is the MELODIC line of the passage?

What is the core message that sums up this teaching? Express it in contemporary wording….

Melodic Line of the text? In one sentence. Compile some applications to daily personal life & society. How would you encourage listeners to respond to this message from God? How does it interact with the questions below?
How does it relate to us in regards to redemptive history?
What does this point mean for the non Christian?     
What does it mean for us as citizens, as employees, and so forth?     
What does it teach us about Christ?     
What does it mean for us as individual Christians?     
What does it mean for our church as a whole?     
Hidden Worldviews that Gospel application needs to counter. How does the text counter one or more of these false worldviews. Can I shed light on any of these hidden worldviews with this passage?
• Individualism — the story that “I” am the center of the universe
• Consumerism — the story that I am what I own
• Nationalism — the story that my nation is God’s nation
• Moral relativism — the story that we can’t know what is universally good
• Scientific naturalism — the story that all that matters is matter
• New Age — the story that we are gods
• Postmodern tribalism — the story that all that matters is what my small group thinks
• Salvation by therapy — the story that I can come to my full human potential through inner exploration
• Moralism— the belief that the Gospel can be reduced to improvements in behavior
• Traditionalism —  Adherence to tradition, especially in cultural or religious practice. Or a system holding that all knowledge is derived from original divine revelation and is transmitted by tradition.
1. Creation by Word In the beginning God created everything that exists. He made Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden. God spoke to them and gave them certain tasks in the world. For food he allowed them the fruit of all the trees in the garden except one. He warned them that they would die if they ate of that one tree. Genesis 1 and 2
2. The Fall The snake persuaded Eve to disobey God and to eat the forbidden fruit. She gave some to Adam and he ate also. Then God spoke to them in judgment, and sent them out of the garden into a world that came under the same judgment. Genesis 3
3. First Revelation of Redemption Outside Eden, Cain and Abel were born to Adam and eve. Cain murdered Abel and Eve bore another son, Seth. Eventually the human race became so wicked that God determined to destroy every living thing with a flood. Noah and his family were saved by building a great boat at God’s command. The human race began again with Noah and his three sons with their families. Sometime after the flood a still unified human race attempted a godless act to assert its power in the building of a high tower. God thwarted these plans by scattering the people and confusing their language. Genesis 4–11
4. Abraham Our Father Sometime in the early second millennium BC God called Abraham out of Mesopotamia to Canaan. He promised to give this land to Abraham’s descendants and to bless them as his people. Abraham went, and many years later he had a son, Isaac. Isaac in rum had two sons, Esau and Jacob. The promises of God were established with Jacob and his descendants. He had twelve sons, and in time they all went to live in Egypt because of famine in Canaan. Genesis 12–50
5. Exodus: Our Pattern of Redemption In time the descendants of Jacob living in Egypt multiplied to become a very large number of people. The Egyptians no longer regarded them with friendliness and made them slaves. God appointed Moses to be the one who would lead Israel out of Egypt to the promised land of Canaan. When the moment came for Moses to demand the freedom of his people, the Pharaoh refused to let them go. Though Moses worked ten miracle–plagues which brought hardship, destruction, and death to the Egyptians. Finally, Pharaoh let Israel go, but then pursued them and trapped them at the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The God opened a way in the sea for Israel to cross on dry land, but closed the water over the Egyptian army, destroying it. Exodus 1–15
6. New Life: Gift and Task After their release from Egypt, Moses led the Israelites to Mount Sinai. There God gave them his law which they were commanded to keep. At one point Moses held a covenant renewal ceremony in which the covenant arrangement was sealed in blood. However, while Moses was away on the mountain, the people persuaded Aaron to fashion a golden calf. Thus they showed their inclination to forsake the covenant and to engage in idolatry. God also commanded the building of the tabernacle and gave all the rules of sacrificial worship by which Israel might approach him. Exodus 16–40; Leviticus
7. The Temptation in the Wilderness After giving the law to the Israelites at Sinai, God directed them to go in and take possession of the promised land. Fearing the inhabitants of Canaan, they refused to do so, thus showing lack of confidence in the promises of God. The whole adult generation that had come out of Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was condemned to wander and die in the desert. Israel was forbidden to dispossess its kinsfolk, the nation of Edom, Moab, and Ammon, but was given victory over other nations that opposed it. Finally, forty years after leaving Egypt, Israel arrived in the Moabite territory on the east side of the Jordan. Here Moses prepared the people for their possession of Canaan, and commissioned Joshua as their new leader. Numbers; Deuteronomy
8. Into the Good Land Under Joshua’s leadership the Israelites crossed the Jordan and began the task of driving out the inhabitants of Canaan. After the conquest the land was divided between the tribes, each being allotted its own region. Only the tribe of Levi was without an inheritance of land because of its special priestly relationship to God. There remained pockets of Canaanites in the land and, from time to time, these threatened Israel’s hold on their new possession. From the one–man leaderships of Moses and Joshua, the nation moved into a period of relative instability during which judges exercised some measure of control over the affairs of the people. Joshua; Judges; Ruth
9. God’s Rule in God’s Land Samuel became judge and prophet in all Israel at a time when the Philistines threatened the freedom of the nation. An earlier movement for kingship was received and the demand put to a reluctant Samuel. The first king, Saul, had a promising start to his reign but eventually showed himself unsuitable as the ruler of the covenant people. While Saul still reigned, David was anointed to succeed him. Because of Saul’s jealousy David became an outcast, but when Saul died in battle David returned and became king (about 1000 BC). Due to his success Israel became a powerful and stable nation. He established a central sanctuary at Jerusalem, and created a professional bureaucracy and permanent army. David’s son Solomon succeeded him (about 961 BC) and the prosperity of Israel continued. The building of the temple at Jerusalem was one of Solomon’s most notable achievements. 1 and 2 Samuel; 1 Kings 1–10; 1 Chronicles; 2 Chronicles 1–9
10. The Fading Shadow Solomon allowed political considerations and personal ambitions to sour his relationship with God, and this in turn had a bad effect on the life of Israel. Solomon’s son began an oppressive rule which led to the rebellion of the northern tribes and the division of the kingdom. Although there were some political and religious high points, both kingdoms went into decline, A new breed of prophets warned against the direction of national life, but matters went from bad to worse. In 722 BC the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the power of the Assyrian empire. Then, in 586 BC the southern kingdom of Judah was devastated by the Babylonians. Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed, and a large part of the population was deported to Babylon. 1 Kings 11–22; 2 Kings
11. There Is a New Creation The prophets of Israel warned of the doom that would befall the nation. When the first exiles were taken to Babylon in 597 BC, Ezekiel was among them. Both prophets ministered to the exiles. Life for the Jews (the people of Judah) in Babylon was not all bad, and in time many prospered. The books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel indicate a certain normality to the experience, while Daniel and Esther highlight some of the difficulties and suffering experienced in an alien and oppressive culture. Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Daniel; Esther
12. The Second Exodus In 539 BC Babylon fell to the Medo–Persian empire. The following year, Cyrus the king allowed the Jews to return home and to set up a Jewish state within the Persian empire. Great difficulty was experienced in re–establishing the nation. There was local opposition to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Many of the Jews did not return but stayed on in the land of their exile. In the latter part of the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire. The Jews entered a long and difficult period in which Greek culture and religion challenged their trust in God’s covenant promises. In 63 BC Pompey conquered Palestine and the Jews found themselves a province of the Roman empire. Ezra; Nehemiah; Haggai
13. The New Creation for Us The province of Judea, the homeland of the Jews, came under Roman rule in 63 BC. During the reign of Caesar Augustus, Jesus was born at Bethlehem, probably about the year 4 BC. John, known as the Baptist, prepared the way for the ministry of Jesus. This ministry of preaching, teaching, and healing began with Jesus’ baptism and lasted about three years. Growing conflict with the Jews and their religious leaders led eventually to Jesus being sentenced to death by the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. He was executed by the Romans just outside Jerusalem, but rose from death two days afterward and appealed to his followers on a number of occasions. After a period with them, Jesus was taken up to heaven. Matthew; Mark; Luke; John
14. The New Creation in Us Initiated After Jesus had ascended, his disciples waited in Jerusalem. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came upon them and they began the task of proclaiming Jesus. As the missionary implications of the gospel became clearer to the first Christians, the local proclamation was extended to world evangelization. The apostle Paul took the gospel to Asia Minor and Greece, establishing many churches as he went. Eventually a church flourished at the heart of the empire of Rome. Acts
15. The New Creation in Us Now As the gospel made inroads into pagan societies it encountered many philosophies and non–Christian ideas which challenged the apostolic message. The New Testament epistles shows that the kind of pressures to adopt pagan ideas that had existed for the people of God in Old Testament times were also a constant threat to the churches. The real danger to Christian teaching was not so much in direct attacks upon it, but rather in the subtle distortion of Christian ideas. Among the troublemakers were the Judaizers who added Jewish law–keeping to the gospel. The Gnostics also undermined the gospel with elements of Greek philosophy and religion. New Testament Epistles
16. The New Creation Consummated God is Lord over history and therefore, when he so desires, he can cause the events of the future to be recorded. All section of the New Testament contain references to things which have not yet happened, the most significant being the return of Christ and the consummation of the kingdom of God. No clues to the actual chronology are given, but it is certain that Christ will return to judge the living and the dead. The old creation will be undone and the new creation will take its place. The New Testament

SON OF MAN (Part one of a three part sermon series.)

“The Son of Man” is a designation of Christ found frequently in the NT. It was Jesus’ favorite designation of himself to imply both his messianic mission and his full humanity.”

Dale Ellenburg and John B. Polhill


1. The Son of Man signifies and conceals Christ’s Messiahship.

  1. Jesus avoided the use of the term MESSIAH (lit “Anointed one” Greek “Christ”).

    1. It had militaristic connotations.

    2. It had political connotations.

Why is this important?

  • What we presuppose or imagine God to be has consequences. God is not the sum of all our fallen hopes and dreams. He is the sum total of Himself and he shares Himself with us.

  • “Thy kingdom come” will not be brought about through legislation but through the second coming.

  • Even today the name of Christ (Messiah) is misused or exploited for military or political purposes. (Examples: Mid-Eastern politics: Christian Zionism, Political party platforms: How would Jesus vote? Or building a “nation under God”)

2. The Christian teaching concerning The Incarnation is linked with the title Son of Man.

  1. Incarnation: “This term refers, in the first instance, to the act wherein the eternal Son “became flesh,” but it is extended to signify the whole experience of human life into which he entered, and also embraces within its reference the fact that Christ still bears his humanity and will do so forever.” C. W. Carter

      • And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14, ESV)

  • The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.” (John 1:14, The Message)

  1. The Christian teaching of incarnation has a divine order or direction to it.

    1. Think of the song Lord I Lift Your Name on High… “You Came from Heaven to Earth..”

    2. No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” (John 3:13, ESV)

      • Our culture is really becoming more and more… anthropocentric in its world view. Anthropocentric is a ten dollar word that basically means man centered in these three ways:

      1. Human beings are the central fact of the universe.

      1. As a worldview it assumes that human beings are the final aim and end of the universe.

      2. This world view seems to view and interpret everything in terms of human experience and values.



Man Centered Worldview

Man Centered Worldview


God Centered Worldview

God Centered Worldview














Why is this important?

  1. The Son of Man means God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.  2 Corinthians 5:19

  2. Jesus was not thinking of ME ABOVE ALL he was thinking of the FATHER ABOVE ALL. John 3:16

  3. Because you know that Jesus represents the Father you can be confident that God The Father Almighty has extended his loving hand of Grace to you through the incarnation of Jesus as The Son of Man.


John 3:13–18

Will you trust and receive The Son of Man today?

““No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe, it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up—and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. “This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person’s failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.” (John 3:13–18, The Message)


If you enjoy reading The Bible here is something to meditate on from William Webb (pretty much my NEW hero)…

First of all I want to encourage you to purchase this book by William Webb…
Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis

“As one might suspect from its name, a key component of a redemptive-movement hermeneutic is the idea of movement. The Christian seeking to apply Scripture today should examine the movement between the biblical text and its surrounding social context. Once that movement has been discovered, there needs to be an assessment of whether the movement is preliminary or absolute (see criterion 1). If it is preliminary and further movement in the direction set by the text would produce a more fully realized ethic, then that is the course of action one must pursue. The interpreter extrapolates the biblical movement toward a more just, more equitable and more loving form. If a better ethic than the one expressed in the isolated words of the text is possible, and the biblical and canonical spirit is headed that direction, then that is where one ultimately wants to end up. The alternative, of course, is to work with an understanding of Scripture that is static.
A static hermeneutic does not interest itself in discovering movement. It is primarily interested in exegeting the text as an isolated entity and finding comparable or equivalent expressions (alternative forms) of how that text may be lived out in another culture. In the case of slavery, a static hermeneutic would not condemn biblical-type slavery, if that social order were to reappear in society today. Proponents of a static hermeneutic are generally willing to condemn American slavery, which was often worse than the biblical form, but they will not speak in a negative manner about the kind of slavery presented in the Bible. In the meantime, the household codes concerning masters and slaves are transferred to the modern context of employer/employee relationships. Equivalent admonitions of “obey” and “submit” are popped in like sure-fit items. This type of application process amounts to a rather wooden swapping of ancient-world and modern-world equivalents. When a static hermeneutic is pressed with the actual words of the slavery texts, however, it produces grotesque, mutation-like applications. Imagine taking the words of Peter and advising modem employees to accept physical beatings by their employers for the sake of the gospel (1 Pet 2:18-25). Or, think about instructing contemporary employers from the Pentateuch that, should they limit beating employees to within a hairbreadth of their life, they would not be guilty of legal reprisal (Ex 21:20-21). Or, maybe our modem world should consider handing out lesser penalties for sexual violation against an employee (= slave) than in the case of sexual violation against an employer or self-employed person (= free) (Deut 22:25-27; cf. Lev 19:20-22). These examples, of course, show the utterly ridiculous nature of a static hermeneutic. Even a static application utilizes a redemptive-movement hermeneutic of sorts, on a lesser scale, by its selective choice of that which can and cannot be carried over to our context.
One might be able to persuade a modern congregation into believing that employees should “obey” and “submit to” their employers based upon the slavery texts. This happens all the time. But the outcome reflects a tragic misunderstanding of Scripture. The rest of the slavery material, beyond the obey/submit instructions, is often left at arm’s length and simply not applied.  This kind of static approach to the slavery texts is not persuasive. In fact, the wooden nature of a static hermeneutic becomes a liability to any Christian seeking to live out their commitment to God’s will, as revealed through Scripture. Having discovered the movement of the biblical texts on slavery relative to the original social context, an extrapolation of that movement today leads to the abolition of slavery altogether. On this issue our culture is much closer to an ultimate ethic than it is to the unrealized ethic reflected in the isolated words of the Bible.

In addition to the complete removal of slavery, a redemptive-movement hermeneutic proposes quite a different way of applying the household codes in our modern context. A redemptive-movement hermeneutic does not argue that modem Christians apply the household codes through submitting to and obeying their employers. Such an application not only neglects the element of movement to a more fully realized ethic but overlooks fundamental differences between slavery and modem employee-employer relations. The most crucial difference is that of ownership compared to a contractual basis for working relationships. In the modern contractual setting we should not preach obedience and submission, but that Christian employees should fulfill the terms of their contract to the best of their ability in order to bring glory to God and enhance their gospel witness. In addition, a redemptive-movement hermeneutic seeks to reapply the spirit or movement component of the slavery texts relative to the surrounding cultures. Scripture sides heavily with the plight of the slave, the poor and the oppressed. This life-breathing spirit, which bettered the conditions for slaves in the ancient world, should also influence the application process today. Contemporary Christian employers, then, should not abuse their power in pursuit of bottom-line production but advance their businesses in ways that value their employees as people and encourage their productive contribution in humane and just ways. Working conditions, levels of income, and disparity between the rich and poor are all issues that the redemptive spirit, evidenced in scriptural movement, ought to impact as we bring these texts to bear on our modem world.”

William J. Webb. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Kindle Locations 319-339). Kindle Edition.

What are your thoughts?

1. “A static hermeneutic does not interest itself in discovering movement.” What do you think about the idea that scripture is not static?

2. As we read scripture are we able to see the trajectory of a text not just the shooter or the place where the text is being shot from?

Here is a great blog response to this Sunday’s message…

My phone is not working so I am not sure if I received any texts this week. Here is a great blog response to this Sunday’s message…

“Maybe God has placed us in this community so we can realize we are not alone. Maybe God has asked us to share with each other and grow as a community in love and discipleship. Maybe we are incapable of standing on the scale of faith as individuals but as a community, through communication and openness, we can stand strong on the scale with two feet and no crutch.”

“God lets his children tell the story.” Pete Enns

Peter Enns is a leading Old Testament Scholar (Ph.D. from Harvard  in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations). I enjoy reading his views concerning how we should interpret the scriptures and how they are authoritative for us today. I was blessed by this article this morning thought you might be as well.

“God lets his children tell the story.”

“The Bible is what happens when God allows his children to tell his story–which means the biblical writers told the story from their point of view, with their limitations, within the cultural context in which they wrote.”

“When children tell the story of their father or mother, parents are typically delighted by how much they get and the childlike way that they see the world. But they are also well aware that children miss a lot when they tell the story, and invariably refract the complexities of family life through their own youthful vision.”

“This is a way of understanding why the Bible behaves the way that it does. It bears the marks of the limitations of the cultures.”

Four Stages of Faith Development… any thoughts?

Brian McLarens spin* on the four stages of faith development,

1. Simplicity

2. Complexity

3. Perplexity

4. Humility

He says… “Each stage enfolds, embraces, integrates, and revalues the gains of previous stages, and, in so doing, rises to a higher level.”

Q: Have you seen evidence of this, presumably universal human pattern, in your walk with Christ?

Q: How does an understanding of his four stages effect the way we interact with one another as a community?

Q: Do you agree with his four stages?

Q: Would you add or take away from this list?

*Fowler’s stages of faith development

Ten things you need to know when talking with an evangelical. Number One: How to respond to the question: “How are you doing?”

First of all I probably don’t know what I’m talking about. If you are an evangelical you might read this and say something along the lines of “I don’t sound like that!” or “you have a chip on your shoulder.”… and you may be right… who am I to judge?  I can only speak from my experience as an evangelical learning the language with all its subtle cultural nuances. I want to share 10 things I have learned that help me understand, communicate and even discern the sometimes complex community language of evangelicalism. The first thing I want to address is how to answer the question “How are you doing?” when asked by an evangelical.

1. How are you doing?” Perhaps In many other cultures and clubs this phrase generally means “I care and would like to actually understand how you are doing.” however, in many evangelical circles when you are asked this question it is similar to a pitching coach asking a struggling pitcher during a mound visit “hey, how are you feeling?” after he has given up a grand slam and walked ten batters in a row.  What I have learned is that if I am asked this question by certain kinds of evangelicals it really means something like this… “I see your struggling, I am not, so I figured I would come and see if you are really one of us”.

(At this point I feel compelled to add that if you can identify with me so far you will understand the rest of what I am about to say but if you are not following me up to this point the following will probably bother you… and you should stop reading now and follow this link to hone your skills.)

How are you doing?

Now, let me take a moment and bring the analogy of the struggling baseball pitcher up again. When approached by the coach and asked “how are you doing?” what he really means is “I see you are struggling we have a guy warming up who isn’t struggling should we replace you… loser?” At this point a real competitor is forced to lie to the coach and lying is acceptable in baseball, deception is actually a part of the rules. This poses a problem however to the evangelical when a religiously well armed stronger believer asks you “how are you doing?” you know that you need to play your next move with great wisdom. You may need to lie (which is a sin) in order to avoid the smiling moral and behavioral shtick you are probably going to receive from one of God’s own scripturally certified behavioral emissaries.

 What I am trying to say? You really only have one of two responses to the question “How are you doing?”

1. If you say the truth “I am not doing well.” you will probably be forced to hear one of the many thousands of scriptures that they have memorized just for times like these. We as evangelicals have been well trained like emergency room technicians to diagnose and treat any issue with pithy sayings, scripture or aphorisms all before you can even explain why you are not doing well. Things like empathy or sympathy generally get in the way of our commission to restore you to faith and spiritual health. You see in my experience many of my evangelical brothers and sisters don’t actually hear a person  say “I am not doing well.” What they really hear is “Help! I don’t have enough faith”, or “Help! I don’t understand all of God’s promises”, or “Help! I don’t know a relevant scripture passage”, or “Help! I don’t understand the concept that right thinking leads to right actions.”

2. You can lie. “I am wonderful! Hey thanks for asking.” The response you will probably hear from us will be something like “Great! keep it up… by the way would you like to become more involved in church ministry?”

Well that’s all for today. I hope this helps you on your journey in the world of evangelicalism. I won’t lie sometimes it’s hard but I love it and wouldn’t have it any other way. You might think this rant sounds as if I have a chip on my shoulder. At least that’s what my wife just told me after I read it to her. She told me to wait a couple of days before I send it off. I appreciate that advice and it is probably wise but on the other hand evangelicals have many “chips on their shoulders” it’s just usually not with themselves (in a corporate sense) it’s almost always others. I have acted and will probably act again as one of  “God’s own scripturally certified behavioral emissaries.” and I hate that but I am happy that at this stage in my spiritual growth my own hypocrisy is far more real to me than others.  I love being an evangelical it’s real, it’s my family and we’re all growing.

By the way “how are you doing”?