Bible Reading: Mark 2. 1-3. 6
“The beginning of the conspiracy against the life of Jesus ends the dispute section in 2: 1 – 3: 6 with a dark note. The powers that will lead Jesus to death begin to materialize; towards the beginning of his ministry, the end is already in sight. ?Joel Marcus
- Once.
- While teaching the gospel in a class of new church members where I served as a pastor.
- Two women approached me with an interesting request: “Can you pray for our work environment?”Confused by the application.
- I asked them to better explain to me what they had in mind.
- The eldest of the two women quickly added: “Not all of our colleagues are Christians.
- They swear all the time.
- They make unnecessary jokes and that affected our relationship with Jesus.
- “And at that moment.
- I understood the situation.
- I was surprised again: “We pray for this and God did not answer our prayers.
- That is why we would like you.
- As a pastor.
- To say a powerful prayer for God to shut the mouths of Our colleagues.
- ?.
Without wanting to get into the question that the pastor’s prayer is no longer powerful, I proposed an alternative: “What do you think instead of praying that God will shut your friends’ mouths, let us pray that God will open his mouth?I believe that you are the people that God would like to use in that of your colleagues, so that they too may know the gospel we have learned here today. To my surprise, my suggestion was not well received, in fact it was quickly rejected. With the heavy face of someone who had been frustrated, one of the women replied, “If we speak of Christ in our work environment, we will be criticized and rejected. Do we risk losing our jobs?” They wanted a magic solution to their problems, but they didn’t want problems in their way, they wanted something from Christ, but they didn’t want to be His instruments in the world, they wanted to follow Christ, but they wanted not to be confronted, they didn’t want to take risks, they didn’t want to oppose it.
Contrary to what many may think, Jesus did not live in a way that suggests that his disciples would lead a life without opposition or confrontation, but jesus’ commitment has always been with God’s truth and mission, as we clearly see in his ministry. His concentration was impeccable: he knew his mission, he knew who he was and he was willing to do what he needed to accomplish his mission. Jesus did not push in the face of opposition. Jesus did not go back to confrontation; In fact, Jesus bravely confronts the opposition.
And this is very clear in the text we are reading today. In it, Mark selects five accounts in which Jesus confronts the Jewish authorities and through them presents two elements that occur at the same time: while Jesus expresses his authority, the authorities express his rejection; as Jesus walks to give his life, the authorities walk to take it away (2:7 [cf. 14:64]; 3: 6 [cf. 14:1]). Mark organizes these five stories of Jesus to alert us to a simple fact of Christian life: if our Lord suffered opposition, we who follow in his footsteps will also suffer.
As we read this gospel carefully, we realize that Mark subtly demonstrates Jesus’ authority from the beginning of his gospel (see 1:1; 7-8; 11; 22; 27; 31; 41). However, the development of Christ’s history in this gospel does not show the growing popularity of Jesus, as some might expect, on the contrary, when he expresses his authority and makes clear his mission, Jesus becomes increasingly unpopular (!) And in today’s pericopy, we see the beginning of the end of Jesus’ story with a subtle change in the tone of the narrative: the growing popularity of Jesus (for the wrong reasons) that we saw in past pericopy (1:21-45) becomes a growing opposition to Him (also for the wrong reasons) by the Jewish authorities. Gradually, Jesus’ message and mission become clearer to his listeners, who gradually become indisposed against Him, and in this scenario, Jesus does not cower Mark teaches us that Jesus courageously perseveres in fulfilling his ministry even in the midst of increasing opposition.
In the first story, Jesus confronts theological convictions (2: 1-12). Jewish theology understood that only God could forgive sins, after all, he was ultimately the one most offended by sin (cf. Ps 51, 1-4). For them, a prophet could possibly proclaim God’s forgiveness of sins, but could never offer forgiveness to sinners. But in this story, Jesus shows that he has the authority to forgive sins by healing a paralytic (2: 9-13). Thus, we realize that the demonstration of the power and authority that Jesus has to heal people and cast out demons, acquires a new dimension here: He also has the authority to forgive sins, which only God can do. (2: 7). The impression that Mark gives us here is that Jesus challenges religious beliefs being fully convinced of his identity: “So that you know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins? said to the paralytic? Do I send you, get up, pick up your bed and go home? (2: 10-11). He knows who he is: Son of man; He knows what he has come to do: he has come to offer divine forgiveness.
In the second, Jesus confronts social conventions (2: 13-17) by inviting a tax collector to join his group of disciples (2:14; cf. 1: 16-20) and join them for a meal ( 2: 15-17). ). From the perspective of first century Judaism, truly godly people did not walk with sinners, much less share meals with them. However, Jesus thought otherwise: not only did he understand that such a social convention was inadequate, but he went so far as to confront it by calling sinners to join his movement (2:14), so that among his disciples there were countless sinners? (2:15). And even worse, Jesus continues to defend that this is precisely his mission: “The healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (v. 17). In other words, Jesus doesn’t just want these sinners to be part of his ministry, he wants to be with them and share his meals with them (2:16). At this point, Mark shows that although the religious elite have their social conventions, Jesus does not care about them and is ready to confront them to expand the Kingdom of God and proclaim His message. Jesus knows who he is: he is the doctor sent by God to cure man’s main disease, his sin. Jesus knows what his mission is: he has not only come to offer forgiveness, he has come to invite sinners to be with him and to enjoy his communion.
In the third episode, Jesus challenges the religious consensus (2: 18-22). In Jesus’ day, fasting was a very common practice and was observed weekly by some religious groups. The Pharisees, for example, fasted every Monday and Thursday (cf. Didache, 8). It was a sign of mercy at the time, so it was surprising that Jesus and his disciples did not observe the fast, which even John’s disciples observed in those days (2:18). And in this context, Jesus took the opportunity to teach that his presence had marked the beginning of a new era that would not bother him to reuse old religious customs, on the contrary, he was concerned to demonstrate that the novelty of the values of The Kingdom of God was superior to ancient religion (2: 21-22). This, on the other hand, would not mean that the disciples would never fast (v. 20), but that the religious and empty practices of the Jewish culture of those days could not absorb the novelty that Jesus had come to bring, and that for this reason they were ultimately incompatible. Jesus knew who he was: he was the one who opened a new and living path for his disciples. He knew what his mission was: not only to offer forgiveness to sinners to enjoy his company and brotherhood, but also to offer a new way of life to his disciples, rejecting the old religious models of tradition.
Finally, Jesus rejects religious tradition (2: 23-3: 6). Perhaps there is nothing more exclusively Jewish than the theology of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was so important that it occupied much of the thinking of the Jewish authorities. Because they understood that the Sabbath should be sanctified (cf. Exodus 20: 8-11; Deut 5: 12-15), and because of zeal for this principle, the Pharisees created a series of expansions of this commandment in an attempt to protect Jews from violating this commandment. However, over time, the zealous creativity of the Pharisees became more important than the commandment itself, and as a result, the Scriptures took a back seat (2: 25-26). By collecting ears on the Sabbath, Jesus directly rejected the tradition of the Jewish authorities, and did so by understanding exactly who He was: He is the Lord of the Sabbath (2:28). In other words, in addition to extending forgiveness to sinners, including in their communities, and educating them about the new way of life that he came to bring, Jesus Christ rejects the empty religiosity of creative and legalistic zeal. The new life He offers cannot be lived in terms of religiosity.
By organizing these episodes of Jesus’ life side by side, Mark offers us the perspective the Jewish authorities had of Jesus and explains why our Lord’s ministry was not as popular as some think, in doing so helps us understand why the One who had been acclaimed by the multitudes with his miracles (cf. 1:45) he would end up being condemned to the cross by a multitude who shout: Cross it!(15: 12-15). The truth is that Jesus bravely faced himself in his ministry.
But see how the reaction of the religious authorities has increased. When Jesus told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven (2:5), the reaction of the religious authorities was internal: “There were teachers of the law sitting there, reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like this?Who can forgive sins if it’s not just God?(2: 6-7). Although Christ’s affirmation was a powerful challenge for the theological community of the time, it seems that Jesus enjoyed some credit. The scribes fully understood Jesus’ affirmation and classified it as blasphemy (2:6), but did not tear his clothes or sentence him. him to death (see 14:63-64). On the contrary, when they heard what Jesus said, they sat down and thought: for them something was wrong, but at that moment, the opposition did not rise to contradict Jesus.
When Jesus began to include sinners and publicans among his disciples, the Jewish authorities saw it as a problem, but this time they did not remain silent, and did not just look: “When the doctors of the law who were Pharisees saw him eat with sinners and publicans, they asked Jesus’ disciples, “Why do you eat with the publicans and sinners?”(2:16). Jesus’ actions began to arouse suspicions about who he was in the eyes of the religious authorities, and now they can no longer stand still, they have to do something. However, instead of questioning Jesus himself about his attitudes, the cowardly authorities seek out the disciples.
When Jesus breaks the weekly tradition of fasting, affront seems to take on new proportions; the accumulation of Jesus’ offenses and the challenges to religious tradition begin to disturb the Jewish authorities to the point that they must do something. , instead of visiting the disciples, go directly to Jesus:?Some people [among the Jewish authorities] approached Jesus and asked him, Why do John’s disciples and Pharisees’s disciples fast, but yours do not?(2 : 18). Jesus’ challenge here is far from as aggressive as the claim to have the authority to forgive sins, but given the way things go, the mere refusal to impose fasting on his followers becomes a big problem.
However, when Jesus challenged the theology of the Sabbath, the Pharisees could not control thee: they did not sit down, nor did they go to the disciples, nor did they decide to ask Jesus for anything; at that time, the Pharisees were ready to accuse. him: “Look, why are you doing what’s not allowed on Saturday?”(2:24). The crimes had accumulated and from that moment it became clear to the religious authorities that Jesus could not be who he claimed to be: the messiah would have his impeccable Jewish behavior, and Jesus represented none of that. For the Jewish authorities, Jesus was an imposter He needs to be arrested.
And that is exactly what begins to happen when Jesus returns to the synagogue (3:1), it was the same environment in which Jesus taught (1:21; cf. 1:39) and where he made his first public exorcism in this Gospel (1:21-28). However, the astonishment before Jesus, his teaching and authority (1:22, 27) is subtly replaced by an environment of trap:?Some of them [the Jewish authorities] were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus; so they watched him closely, to see if he would cure him on Saturday (3:2). The stage is ready and the opportunity arises before Christ: a man with a dry hand to be healed in the synagogue on the Sabbath and of course, as soon as they witness the healing of this man, the Jewish authorities begin to conspire to kill Jesus. “Then the Pharisees went out and began to conspire with the Herodians against Jesus, about how they could kill him. “(3: 6).
What is scary about this episode is that the healing of a man in distress is the last drop of water in a glass ready to overwhelm the authorities. Almost no one would be offensive to cure, in fact, in Mark, that was exactly what made Jesus so popular (see 1:33-34; 39; 45). But for the Jewish authorities, the opinion is already clear: despite all his confrontation with Jewish religiosity, Jesus could not be the Messiah, for them Jesus was an imposter who needed to be arrested.
What we see in these stories is that the problem was a difference in the perception of Jesus’ identity: while Jesus was fully aware of his identity and mission, the Jewish authorities considered him an imposter, now the mission of the authorities is clear: they must destroy Jesus. In other words, as Jesus walks to give his life, the Jewish authorities walk to take it.
Furthermore, we see another interesting movement in this pericopia: the growing opposition to Jesus observed between the stories (personal reflection, 2: 6; question, 2:16; questioning, 2:18; accusation, 2:24; and conspiracy, 3) . : 6) does not push him or avoid conflict, on the contrary, we see Jesus courageously persevere in the midst of growing opposition, moving forward with determination, without fear of opposition. On the one hand, Jesus is outraged by the audacity of the Pharisees to regard the healing of the Sabbath as a distortion of Jewish theology of the Sabbath; on the other hand, he is saddened by the hardness of their hearts (3: 4-5). On the one hand, he knows that the Jewish authorities will kill him (8: 31-33; 10: 33-34; cf. 14: 1; 43; 53; 60; 15: 1; 31-32). On the other hand, he knows that he came to give his life as a ransom for many (10:45), he knew who he was and what his mission was.
And then Mark teaches us that following Jesus is persevering in the midst of opposition. Our master has been persecuted, and if we follow in his footsteps closely, so will we. However, in the face of growing opposition, our teacher did not run. Jesus, aware of his identity and mission, moved on and we have to do the same. In the midst of opposition, we do not have to fear confrontation and antagonism, but we must courageously persevere in doing what our Lord expects of us, we are disciples of Christ, and our mission is to be fishermen of men, diffusers of the gospel. Therefore, we must follow Christ’s example and courageously persevere in fulfilling the mission entrusted to us for the glory of God.