31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

Because of the way Mark orders events it can sometimes be confusing to see where particular narratives connect up. Scholars call this the “Markan Sandwich” it is where Mark is telling the orderly narrative, then inserts a non-chronological element and then returns to the orderly timeline. He does this with John the Baptist, reaching back to explain the martyrdom then jumping to the present moment in Jesus’ ministry.

For the sake of todays readings we should look to the previous component to explain why Jesus’ family is looking for him and this takes us to verse 21, where Jesus’ relatives hear of his ministry and preaching and basically assume he has lost his mind. It is important to understand that nothing spectacular occurs in Jesus’ life between the finding in the temple in Luke’s early life narrative and Jesus’ ministry beginning. From the age of 12 to 30 Jesus has been nothing but the obedient son of Mary and Joseph the Carpenter.

It’s not like they had Rabbi vocation courses that Jesus scored 10/10 in, he really was nothing but the obedient son to them until his ministry, working with his father as all sons did, so all of what Jesus has been doing in the past 3 chapters is a massive shock. Mary and Joseph had some knowledge but if he was “normal” for 18 years they would still be in a state of shock that things suddenly change.

So Mary, Jesus’ mother and his “brethren” are standing outside looking for him, this would be outside of the Synagogue he is preaching in. The term in Greek is adelphos although the masculine noun is used, it is being used in a general gender neutral sense, as “sisters” are mentioned a few verses later. Jews commonly called their relatives brethren and after the new covenant this general term becomes evne more broad, encompassing all the members of the Church. On top of that considering the authoritative nature of their approach and their chaperoning of Jesus’ mother we can confidently assume they are male relatives older than Jesus, especially because of the interaction in verse 21.

They are most likely blood relatives of Mary but could not be her children, the names of the male relatives are not mentioned here but elsewhere they are, James, Joseph, Judas and Simon and they are clearly established as sons of a different woman also named Mary.

32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brethren are outside, asking for you.”

The crowds that are listening to Jesus’ preaching, sitting around him notice the commotion outside of the Synagogue involving his mother and fellow Nazarenes. They tell him that they are looking for him. It is important to remember that the crowds following Jesus around at this time fill and surround the buildings he enters, you might think that his family are for some reason locked out of a sparse room but that is not the case despite the artwork that typically depicts this scene, we know from elsewhere how massive these crowds are. He could not physically see them, nor they him.

33 And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brethren?”

Jesus is not denying knowledge of his family, pretending or otherwise. He has people hanging on every word from his mouth as he preaches the Kingdom of God, the New and Eternal Covenant family about to be brought into the world. He uses this as a teaching opportunity for how these disciples of his should act in the future, they must understand just how deep the New Covenant goes, as we mentioned earlier, Peter will use the term Adelphos to refer to the members of the Church, the new family, deeper than the natural families we are accustomed to.

34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren!

Jesus looks around the crowds in order to springboard off the commotion to give one of the deepest lessons about the New Covenant. He tells them that they are his family now. Mother and brethren are mentioned but there is a component of the family missing; the Father. This is because in the New Covenant God the Father is our Father. All fatherhood stems from him and in him.

35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Verse 35 brings us the qualifier for what makes those around Jesus his brother and sister and mother. “Whoever does the will of God.” Just like Luke 11:27-28, where a woman calls out ‘ “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck. But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’” we see the higher highlight of Mary’s role. It isn’t that she is “just” the biological mother of Jesus that makes her his mother it is that she completely and absolutely submitted to the will of God when she gave her fiat. Be it done unto me, according to your word. No one can ever say they kept closer to this rule than Mary herself which is what makes her the perfect type of Christian to imitate.

Chapter 3 of Marks Gospel begins with the pharisees testing Jesus in the Synagogue during his early ministry and also he has just appointed the twelve apostles to be his inner circle and minister with him. Jesus has extended his authority to heal and exorcise demons to these twelve, following this returns to Caperanaum to continue his Synagogue service visits on the Sabbath to teach the crowds.

22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-elzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”

Jesus has reached a certain point in his fame that scribes from the capital city have been sent to observe him. Scribes were Mosaic lawyers, experts in the Law of Moses who offered a service of consultancy on the Law. Think of it as hiring a lawyer when pursuing legal enterprises, the difference is, the entirety of the life of a Second Temple Jew was dictated by the Law, not just some aspects.

Previous to this Jesus has exorcised demons and extended this authority to his twelve apostles. Exorcism was not uncommon to Second Temple Jews but their methodology was dramatically different to what Jesus and his disciples were doing. Although specific examples are sparse, they do exist both the historian Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls witness to similar things.

1. Invoking Sacred names, like that of God, Archangels or Prophets
2. Incantations derived from scripture, reciting the Psalms (for example Psalm 91)
3. Ritual objects like rings (See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book 8), roots and/or burnt offerings

This is not how Jesus or his disciples exorcise demons which to the experts of the Law, make them suspect of demonic association. They accuse him of doing these acts by Be-elzebul or Beelzebub. Beelzebub is a name derived from a title given to deity of the Philistines. Beel comeing from Ba’al which means Lord and zebub meaning Of Flies. So it means Lord of Flies. It became associated with the god of the Caananites Ba’al. It is hard to tell when exactly it became synonymous with the evil one but it is not too hard to see how the Hebrews saw the chief deity of their enemies as the chief evil cosmic force opposing God or at least having some association with each other.

23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?

Jesus responds to his critics with parables. A parable is a story that enables the listener to understand something invisible or complex with something simpler. They are not always one to one with the reality of the situation, it depends on the context.

First Jesus responds to the wording of their accusation, that the evil one is the leader or prince of the other demons. If we interpret this through the organic model, which is the typical outlook of ancient peoples the other demons are of the same “body” as the Satan who is the “head” of said body. Satan as the head of the body couldn’t cast out himself, his demonic minions are of his own evil “body.”

24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Explaining further, beyond the organic model, Jesus turns to the kingdom model, which still appeals to the simplicity of the organic one but it is fitting since they consider Satan a prince. If he was attacking or divided against his own kingdom, it would fall which would actually benefit human beings, so why would they complain about what Jesus is doing if they truly believed that to be the case?

25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.

He shrinks the kingdom model to the domestic model next, if a house is divided or fighting amongst themselves it will not able to to stand, it will fall. Jesus is explaining their own logic when applied to multiple scopes is stupid and makes no sense.

26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.

Shrinking back to the organic model, seeing satan as the head of the demons who are of his body, if he rises up against himself he cannot win or stand and in fact, will destroy himself.

27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

Thus begins the parable, a strong man has his own house and goods. Since he is strong it is impossible to seize what is his unless you bind him, tie him up. Once he is bound, you can plunder his goods. Some have difficulty with this phrasing as it portrays Jesus as a type of thief and Satan as a strong man who owns people but that is actually how it works, the point of the parable is that the “goods” are possessed people. From the moment of the Fall and the disinheritance at Babel, all peoples, including the Hebrews have been subject to a fallen nature. This allows us to be held captive by Satan and only baptism places a seal of ownership upon us. This is how we become members of God’s family and until we’re members of God’s family, we’re owned by Satan. Jesus comes to weaken and bind Satan, to conquer death and then we can be taken by him out of the grasp of Satan.

28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—

To some this seems like an unrelated piece of dialogue that Mark has added to the Scribe vs Jesus interaction but they’re completely wrong. The Holy Spirit is kind of like the conduit by which salvific acts are done. Think of it as the wire between a power source and a component, obviously not in a literal sense, the Spirit is a person not just a connection but I am just trying to simplify things for my own brain and yours. All sins will be forgiven but blaspheming the Holy Spirit makes you guilty of an eternal sin. This is what the Scribes did, by Jesus authority, through the Holy Spirit, Jesus is exorcising and they accuse this method of being demonic and are therefore rejecting the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not just the conduit for exorcisms, it is the invisible conduit for the entire economy of Salvation. What binds you to Christ? Through what “channel” do you ask for forgiveness? It is through the Spirit, if you reject it, you reject forgiveness which paves the way for final impenitence. If you were to always reject the Spirit then you would necessarily reject forgiveness and be guilty of an eternal sin.

30 for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Mark clarifies in his own Gospel that this is not just a random addition of dialogue, the reason Jesus says this is because they accuse the Spirit that Jesus has (the Holy Spirit) of being a demonic one.

The second portion of Chapter 16 in Mark’s Gospel has led to lots of controversy especially from Gospel critics. You might not be aware about this controversy at all but the oldest manuscripts found actually end at verse 8.

“And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.“

Considering what follows in todays readings is the appearance of Jesus to the eleven apostles and charging them with the great commission of going out to baptise and so on this has become a position for sceptics to attack the resurrection. What is awkward about using it to attack the resurrection is that verse 6 of chapter 16 affirms that it happened.

“Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.”

So within the undisputed text the Gospel author, Mark, absolutely believes in the resurrection and records it. The Church has clarified her position long ago, whether Mark wrote the verses from 9-20 or not, they are canonical scripture and have been read in the Liturgy for millennia. It is perfectly possible that the longer ending we have in the canon was missing from the ancient manuscripts because of damage or it is possible someone other than Mark made an addition or even Mark himself later made an addition. What is important is that the text is recognised as inspired and the undisputed verses are a witness for the resurrection not against it.

15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.

Jesus’ mission was to the Jews, the lost sheep of Israel, now that his Passover is complete and a New Covenant is installed, it is time to fulfil the promises God made to the prophets. It is time to incorporate the Gentiles, all the other nations of the world into this New Covenant. So Jesus tells the Eleven living disciples, Judas committed suicide remember and Matthias has not yet been picked, to go out in all the world and preach the Gospel. The Good News. It’s important to briefly explain what the Good News is in both its natural and supernatural contexts.

In the natural context the Gospel or euangelion is the Good News of a new King reigning over a region. When a man was granted authority or inherited the throne from his father, a messenger would go out to the people to preach the euangelion, the good news of a new King.Taking this to the cosmic scale brings us the supernatural context, not an earthly king but a heavenly king now reigns over all.

It brings us to a type of naturalism, a people is a body like a human body and the leader or king is the head. A nation is a body of people, the king in charge is the head that directs it. Now on a supernatural scale a body of people, that of the entire human race, has been invited to submit to the new King of Kings, Jesus the Christ.

Going back to Genesis we have the Tower of Babel incident where the human race, that was united, was divided by God into different locations, languages and races and all but Abraham and his progeny were disinherited by the leadership of God as king. The Good News that is being preached is the reunification of the human race under the God-King, Jesus of Nazareth.

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

He assents to the message and is baptised will be saved, we should be clear that belief or assent is not an intellectual tick box made but a submission to God. Even demons can intellectually “believe” that Jesus is God, it doesn’t do anything, what is required is the absolute trust in him, something only humans are capable of. If they have this trust they will necessarily be baptised as that is what he directs, will be saved. In this context trust and baptism saves you from being cut off from God’s family, preserved by the rule of Satan. A person must cooperate with grace actively, it is not a one and done thing. Those who do not assent to the message will be condemned, cut off from this new founded family of God

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

Continuing his speech to the eleven, Jesus uses previous mechanisms that were used in his ministry but will now be extended to his apostles. Miracles will act as signs, witnesses to their message. These gifts are not present in everyone nor present in the same way at all times, their main purpose is to act as witnesses to the claims of their message. Those who struggle with the problem of evil and suffering typically harp on the point of healing miracles and how God doesn’t just heal everyone of their ailments but that is because that is not their purpose. They are signs, witnesses to the claims not a get out of pain free card.

Exorcisms will be a sign common to these as well as being able to speak in tongues. Most people understand the notion of exorcism but there is some confusion about speaking in new or other tongues. It is not randomly babbling noises that make no sense but being able to speak in the language of a person you are evangelising that you originally did not know. Still miraculous of course, but its not the silly things that people make up. The gift of tongues is most famously expressed in the Book of Acts during Pentecost where people of other languages can understand the preaching of those who could only speak Aramaic.

18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

They will be able to do things that would naturally kill or harm them, picking serpents without being bitten or not suffering from the bite, they can drink poisons and not be harmed. They will be able to heal the sick by laying their hands on them. Again like the previous verse all these things are present in the Book of Acts which detail the events of apostles after the Gospels.

13 And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him.

Verses thirteen to nineteen of chapter three is Mark’s rendition of the picking of the twelve apostles, the inner circle of Jesus’ followers. Jesus is most likely still in the region of Galilee, the Lake is surrounded with pastures, hills and mountains. Jesus goes upon hills and mountains typically before doing something important in his ministry and also just like Moses who on the mountain officialises the twelve tribes of Israel, Jesus appoints the new twelve.

14 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach

He appoints twelve, who are to be “with him” and they are “to be sent out” to preach. The Greek word for “to be sent out” is apostello, it is from this word that Apostle is derived. The twelve that are picked are to be sent out to preach, this would be the same message that Jesus has been preaching himself. It seems some type of permission is required in order to preach the specific message of the Kingdom of God when it is done in an official way. Anyone can share news but only an official messenger could pass on actual proclamations of a king with authority. So in the picking out to preach Jesus shares his authority with the twelve along with other things

15 and have authority to cast out demons:

Beyond the scope of preaching authority of the Kingdom of God the twelve are also granted the authority to cast out demons. There were many exorcists around this time and exorcism was not unknown to the Hebrew people. The difference is that exorcists of the time required the exorcist to petition intercessors like the angels, patriarchs and they were not always successful whereas the exorcisms performed by Jesus are done by his own authority. This is what is being shared with the disciples though their abilities are constrained by their faith which will be exposed when they are unable to exorcise a possessed child.

16 Simon whom he surnamed Peter;

The list begins, although there are a few different middle orders of the Apostles when they listed the first and last are always the same. It always begins with Saint Peter, the primary apostle, the leader of the pack. Here Mark introduces him as “Simon whom he surnamed Peter;” Simon is the Latinised version of the Hebrew name Shim’on which would have been his “real” name. It means “hearing” or “he has heard”. He is the first by primacy to “hear the lord” which is quite interesting. He is surnamed “Peter” which is the Anglicised version of Petros which is the name he receives in the Greek text. This means “rock” or “stone”. This name change entails his new mission as the foundation stone of the Church.

17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-anerges, that is, sons of thunder;

Verse 17 contains the two sons of Zebedee, they are always grouped together because they are siblings and typically come after Simon as they are of the inner circle of the twelve. James is derived from the Hebrew Ya’aqov which is traditionally translated as “Jacob”. This means the “supplanter” or “holder of the heal”. It was a very common name as it was the birth name of Israel. Ironically he will be “supplanted” by James the Just as a pillar of the early church after he is martyred, he is the first of the twelve to suffer such a fate in Acts 12.

John the brother of James, his name is derived from the Hebrew Yochanan which means “Yahweh is gracious” or “Yahweh has shown favour” rather fitting as he is the beloved disciple that Jesus shows the most amount of affection toward. He is also the only one of the twelve to stay by Jesus at the crucifixion and not suffer martyrdom.

The two brothers are surnamed “Bo-anerges” and Mark gives us the translation which is “son of thunder”. This name possibly indicates their disposition of being impulsive which definitely comes across in their desire to rain fire down from heaven on Samaritans. It also speaks to their religious zeal. Bo-anerges is actually a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic phrase, every so often in the Gospels we get evidences of the original language of our Lord and this is one of those cases. B’nei Regesh means “Sons of Thunder” and it sounds awfully similar to the Greek that Mark writes out.

18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,

Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus and Simon the Cananaean are listed next in verse 18.

Andrew is the brother of Simon Peter, Andrew’s name is curious, he is a blood relative of Simon so he is definitely a Jew but his name is Greek. Andrew is the Anglicised version of Andreas which means “Manly” or “Brave”. There was a similar sounding Hebrew name “Andrei” but typically when names are expressed in other languages in this time period its the meaning that is maintained, not the sound. Think Petros and Cephas, the meaning is the same, not the sound. Andrei does not mean the same as Andreas, the most likely candidate for Andrew’s Hebrew name would be Gibbor it means the same as Andreas and at least in one occurrence in the Hebrew Bible it is used as a name instead of just a description. Specifically it is the name of one of King David’s mighty men. Seeing David as a type of Christ I think this would be fitting but its purely speculation on my part.

Philip, similar to Andrew, his name is Greek Philippos, a very common name in the Hellenistic world and it means “Lover of Horses”. Philos means friend or lover and Hippos means Horse. Like Andrew there is no direct Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent. There are also no traditional Hebrew names that have the same meaning but there was a term that in Hebrew that had similar connotations, Parash. This Hebrew term means Horseman and if you were to write it out in Greek it would look somewhat similar but again, pure speculation.

Bartholomew, Bartholomaios in Greek is derived from the Aramaic Bar-Talmai which would mean “Son of Talmai”. The term “Bar” means “Son of” so when you see that elsewhere, you know what it means. No first name is given, he is simply known as the Son of Talmai, considering how common the same first names of people were it made sense to use other identifiers to split people other. For example, there are a lot of James’ and Mary’s so places or parental roots are used to distinguish them. Talmai means “furrowed” or “plowman” and if the name was a descriptor of the occupation of his father then he was Son of a Farmer essentially. Very humble beginnings.

Matthew is up next, the tax collector also known as Levi. Matthew appears to be his Greek name originally Matthaios and Levi is his Hebrew name. Levi means “Joined” or “attached” and Mattaios is actually a Greek version of the Hebrew name Mattityahu which means “Gift of Yahweh”. Considering Levi was a tribal name, his full name was likely Mattityahu of the Tribe of Levi, he Greco-fide his first name to sound more Greek because he was typically working with Romans who spoke that language. If he was of the tribe of Levi that would have meant he was of priestly lineage, this means his occupation as a tax collector was even more of a betrayal than it was perceived to be.

Doubting Thomas comes next, like many of the previous names his is very curious. Thomas is a Greek name, derived from the Aramaic Ta’oma which means “Twin”. He is sometimes referred to as the twin as well so he is being called a twin twice. In Greek names that end with an “a” are feminine names like “Petra” over “Petros”, you add the “s” at the end to make it masculine so you get Ta’omas or what we say today, Thomas. The Greek word Didymus is used which is the Greek term for Twin. Although his original Aramaic name meant Twin, it was actually a name probably given to him because he was a twin sibling, not because of the various conspiracy theories that abound over it that have zero evidence behind them. No other names are given for him in the New Testament.

James the Son of Alphaeus, as we have mentioned before, James is the translation choice for name traditionally translated at Jacob, Son of Alphaeus, his lineage is mentioned to distinguish him from the other James’ mentioned in the New Testament. Alphaeus might be derived from the Aramaic name Chalpai, which means “changing” or “succession”. He is also referred to as James the Less, to separate him from James the Just, and James the Greater.

Thaddaeus follows, which is Thaddaios in Greek, likely derived from the Aramaic “Taddai” which means “Heart” or “courageous”. Some manuscripts give him an alternate name of Jude which is a translator decision over the ominous name “Judas”. Sometimes called Judas Son of James. The name Judas comes from Ioudas in Greek, derived from the hebrew Yehudah which means “praised” or “thanksgiving” a very common name among the Hebrews and was the same name as Judah, the royal tribe. I mentioned the translator decision about his name, people were worried early on about people confusing Judas Thaddaeus with Judas Iscariot so a tradition was established to call him by Jude or just Thaddaeus to avoid this confusion but if you care for autistic accuracy, his name actually is Judas in the original text.

Simon the Cananaean or Simon the Zealot is the last of the “good” apostles on the list. His primary name, Simon, has already been explained. Cananaean should not be confused with Caananites or Caanan, it is actually derived from the Aramaic word Qan’ana which means, Zealot, the other name used for him. This could mean one of two things, or more likely it means both at the same time. This Simon was zealous for the love and Law of God and he was also a member of the militant rebel faction of Jews against Roman rule who were called the Zealots. They were essentially terrorists and their group would later instigate various attacks that caused the Romans to outright obliterate Jerusalem in 70 AD.

19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Finally Judas Iscariot, the Apostle who betrays Jesus is listed lasted and is always listed last with commentary detailing why he is listed last. Because he betrays Jesus. Judas as we have said is the same name as Judah, derived from the Hebrew Yehudah, meaning “praised” or “thanksgiving”. Judas specifically is the Greek rendition of Judah, again as I mentioned with Thomas, an “a” or “ah” sound at the end of the name in Greek is feminine so an “s” sound is added to make it masculine in the Hellenistic world. His last name is widely debated, the most common theory is that Iscariot comes from the Hebrew Ish Qeriyot which means Man of Kerioth, Kerioth was a town in Judea so it could be a geographical distinction of origin. Another theory is that Iscariot comes from the Latin Sicarius meaning “dagger man” or “assassin”, this would associate Judas with a group of Jewish rebels who called themselves the “sicarii”, similar to the Zealots they were revolutionary terrorists against roman rule. The last theory, from some early church writers suggest that Iscariot meant “false one” or “liar” but that is based on Judas’ actions, not on linguistic evidence.

7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea

8 and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him.

9 And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they should crush him;

10 for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him.

11 And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.”

12 And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.

Jesus returns to his visiting of the Synagogues during the Sabbath services. Although there were typically three services a week of reading and teaching of the scriptures in the Synagogue. The Sabbath however was the most populated service, each town had their own Synagogue and all Jews would attend these services in their respective towns. Jesus uses these events to teach the most amount of people in the most reasonable setting. The Synagogue services themselves were formed during the Exile period where they could not do the rituals in the Temple because they did not have one. The Synagogue became the central regular gathering place of common Jews as a temporal holdover until the fulfilment of God’s promises and the teaching of the Mosaic Law.

Upon entering the Synagogue, Mark tells us of a man present who has a withered hand. The “withered hand” likely describes a physical disability where the man’s hand had become shrunken, paralyzed, or deformed, possibly from disease, injury, or birth defect. Although natural and scientific explanations are the norm in modern times, in the context of the Hebrew’s these ailments were typically deemed as a punishment from God for sin, either individually or collectively. Both the Prophet Zechariah and 1 King’s speak of hand withering as a divine punishment from God. In Psalm 137:5 David essentially invites the withering of a hand as a punishment if he ever forgets the City of Jerusalem. So although a real man, he is symbolic of a disobedient Israel.

2 And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.

The Pharisees watch what Jesus will do, as it is the Sabbath, they seek to exert a rigid legalism in order to constrain him. In their eyes, healing a man with a withered hand would count as work and therefore violate the Mosaic Law of not working on the Sabbath, the day of rest. Mark notes their opportunistic motivations for their misapplying of the Law, they watching if he does something good “so that they might accuse him.” It is possible that the Pharisees have contrived this event, they have brought the man into where Jesus will be in order to try to entrap him, nothing in the text proves this to be the case but it is likely as they purposefully trying to accuse him from the get go.

3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come here.”

4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent.

Jesus decides to tackle the Pharisees interpretation of the Law and the mans withered hand in one go. He tells the man to “Come here” and before actually healing him he turns to the Pharisees, asking the question of whether it is Lawful on the Sabbath to do good to do harm, saving or killing. Jesus changes the action they perceive as “work” which was forbidden on the Sabbath, into an act of mercy which was required, Love of God and love of Neighbour.

With Jesus’ repositioning of the meaning behind the actions he brings the Pharisees into the healing event itself. He is basically saying “Unless you say otherwise, I will heal this man.” If they intervene and prevent it, well they are now stopping a man from being healed of an ailment, which would be breaking the Law, Sabbath or not. They also cannot affirm that he is doing the right thing in healing the man because they are only there in order to try to entrap him. It forces them to remain silent, they try to trap him and Jesus traps them in their own convoluted motivations.

5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

Jesus looks at the Pharisees with anger, in an appearance to John in the Book of Revelation Jesus will say of one of the Churches to be “hot or cold” if they are lukewarm he will spit them out. Jesus is more angry at their silence than them not just being outright against him. Their hardness of heart make them neither hot or cold. Jesus tells the man to stretch out his hand, he does so and his hand is restored. This healing in and of itself is a sign of divinity, only God can restore withered limbs. Another not so thinly veiled claim of divinity in the Gospel of Mark that people dismiss as a simple magic trick. In the context of the Jewish people, only God can do these actions. Jesus is not a medicine man or magician, this action is a declaration of Divinity.

6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodi-ans against him, how to destroy him.

The Pharisees upon the man being healed leave the Synagogue, immediately, in order to hold counsel with the Herodians. The Herodians are another dominant political group within Judea, they are the supporters of the Herodian dynasty, the Roman established leaders of the Jews. The Pharisees are no friends of these people, in fact, they hated them for their cooperation with the Romans yet here the Pharisees are willing to turn all of that away in order to focus on how to destroy Jesus who reveals them as failed teachers of the law of Moses.

23 One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

On one Sabbath, the last day of the week which is Saturday for the Jews, Jesus is going through the grainfields. Up to this point we know that Jesus has been followed by large crowds so it is unlikely that Jesus is just alone with his disciples here. The Pharisees will make an appearance in this reading so they are likely watching over the crowds that are actually still with Jesus and his other inner circle followers. Kind of changes the context of the interaction when we realise that they are preoccupied with a large crowd.

Since they are busy doing their ministry work, neither Jesus nor his disciples have time to prepare meals for themselves so as they go through these fields they pick the ears of grain from the crops, crush them and eat the soft inner parts of it. This was a quick and easy food item for the time and place, closest you’re going to get to fast food. This practice of gleaning another persons fields is actually lawful and made obviously so in Deuteronomy, you could glean by hand but were not permitted to reap with a scythe.

24 And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”

In Exodus it is articulated that a Hebrew can not “work” on the Sabbath day, this was to ensure the balance of life amongst the people and also in imitation of God who rested on the Sabbath himself during the seven days of creation. The Pharisees, the teachers of the Law who sit on the Seat of Moses call out Jesus for working on the Sabbath. This is what they mean by saying “they are doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath”. This legalism that spites the person and undermines the point of the Law which in this case was to ensure rest, not stop people from eating when they need to.

The Pharisees routinely used this excessive legalism to keep unruly people inline, the heavy yokes they placed on the people but not on themselves were used by some Pharisees, not all, in order to pacify the community. Someone gets uppity, “well if I interpret this part of the Law here this way, we can punish you” and so on. They do not like Jesus, they are just trying to trap him, pitting him against Moses, or at least that is what they think they are doing.

25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:

26 how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”

Jesus does not respond by telling the Pharisees that they are wrong in how they apply the Law he does something that will actually convince them from their own point of view. Understanding the necessity of this comes from understanding the teaching authority amongst the Hebrew people, if the Pharisees sit in the Seat of Moses, which Jesus claims they do, then they are the rightful teaching authority.

But the teachings do not just come out of their own minds, they come from the scriptures they accept as authoritative. So when speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus makes his points by quoting from the scripture they accept in this case 1 Samuel 21:2-7, when speaking to the Sadducees he only uses the much more limited canon they accept. If Jesus is God why doesn’t he just use his own authority? One might ask. His mission is to convince people of their own free will to be in union with him, doing things by force only apply to that of non-human entities like demons in exorcisms.

He recalls one of the stories of David, how when he was hungry he ate the Bread of the Presence, this was a very holy bread within the Tabernacle that Jewish men were required to observe once a year during a festival of the Hebrews, it is a type of the Eucharist that will be fulfilled at the Last Supper. It’s not normal bread, not common food but when David was hungry, he and his men could eat it, despite it being “against the Law” to do so. This is because the Law is not there to hinder you, the same way the Sabbath, the day of rest, should not prevent you from helping a neighbour in need neither should the prevention of eating the Bread of the Presence cause you to starve to death.

There is also the underlying principle that David was not a “normal man”. He was anointed King and a type of priest, different to that of Aaron or the Levites. He actually has a special rank essentially that would qualify him to eat of this Bread that was limited to priests, his men had also remained clean before God because they were on a military expedition, the spiritual cleanliness requirements of which match that of the priesthood cleanliness, abstaining from women, unclean food and so on. On two levels David and Jesus qualify to eat, along with their men. Level 1: the Law is not their to torture you but to hold you up to God, refusing them food would not be love of neighbour, a greater Law than that of what Jesus is accused of. Level 2: Jesus, like David, is not a normal man, he is both Priest and King, the Pharisees do not know this though but Jesus definitely implies it but the previous level qualifies enough to circumnavigate any attribution of judgement by the Pharisees.

27 And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;

28 so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.”

Jesus then goes on to solidify the point of the Law, the Sabbath, the day of rest was made for man not that man was made for the Sabbath. This difference is key, one enables the love of God and Neighbour above all else, the other causes a rigid legalism that prevents you from helping your fellow man on the Sabbath like feeding the hungry.

Jesus them employs the Messianic title from the Book of Daniel, Son of Man. By the time of the first century this was a quasi-divine figure that was synonymous with the Messiah prophesied in Genesis 3:15 and the Prophet that Moses claimed would come after him and also the promised descendant of David who would reclaim Kingship of Israel. Only God is the Lord of the Sabbath yet Jesus says the Son of Man figure is too. This hints at the mystery of the trinity itself, how could both be Lord of the same thing? And how could he be that figure if God is beyond all material things? It comes to the sharing of a Divine nature with multiple person with in it.

All these layers of divinity, fulfilment of prophecy, priesthood and kingship are only actually thinly veiled in these few verses in the Gospel of Mark and there are many other examples of it throughout his narration. When people claim that divinity or kingship is exclusive to John’s Gospel and that they are non-existent in Mark it shows that they are ignorant of the scripture itself as well as Jesus.

18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”

Following the passages about Jesus’ eating with Levi the tax collectors, his co-workers and other sinners, Mark introduces one of the confrontational events in Jesus’ ministry. The gospel authors method of narration does not lock it to being chronologically after those events necessarily, they could have happened at any point during Jesus’ three year ministry and also it is not likely to have been the only time it happened.

Disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees are fasting. John was a very popular preacher and his disciples even exist to this day, his influence was so great that Herod feared him. The Pharisees were the most popular religious-political party of the Judeans of this time period, upper echelon of them were the rightful teacher of the Mosaic Law. They sat in what was called the seat of Moses, their rise grew during the Exile when the previous leading group, the ministerial priesthood who sat in the seat of Aaron and the Levites had to take a backseat with no Temple to worship in.

Basically what we see highlighted here is an act of piety, fasting, being practiced by the two most popular groups among the Jews. John’s disciples and the Pharisees were not friends so this point of agreement on fasting becomes a point of contradiction with Jesus and his disciples who are not. Fasting itself was an ancient piety practice that helped a person become closer to God, as you deny yourself sustenance, you turn to the true cause of it, not bread but He who made it, God. The Psalms of David speak of this and also in David’s own life he turned to fasting as a form of penance for his sins. A similar expression is found in the Ninevites when the Prophet Jonah preaches to them, they to fast and put ash on their heads for their sins.

Considering the historical and religious context, fasting is a mainstream practice, even opposing parties do it but Jesus does not and neither do his disciples, this is why they deem it necessary to ask why, to them this is almost required.

19 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

Jesus responds to his questioners with another question, almost a parable, one that only thinly veils his identity if you take it literally. He asks if wedding guests can fast whilst the bridegroom is with them. Until he is married, a man has a much closer relationship with his friends and brothers than he does after he has cleaved to his wife to become one flesh. The build up until the marriage itself is one of feasting and joy, Jesus is essentially saying that he is like a bridegroom and up until his wedding he and his friends cannot fast, that would disrupt the festivities.

God throughout the Old Testament compares himself to a bridegroom betrothed to his bride Israel, the Old Covenants are all part of that promise stage of marriage, the betrothal. Eventually he would come to his people to enact the marriage itself, Jesus positioning himself as a bridegroom in his response to the question about fasting is a veiled claim of divinity. It only becomes obvious after the fact, the people cannot be blamed for not realising it.

20 The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

Jesus now prophecies his death, in the form of a marriage. Marriage is a type of death in a way, the death of the single man and woman and the birth of the new flesh bound in covenant. One day the bridegroom would be taken away, this is when his marriage is consummated and of course, then his friends would fast because they would lose their friend to his wife. Jesus is position the crucifixion as his wedding and then they will fast.

21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.

22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins.”

Now Jesus goes into a saying that is most likely talking about the Old Covenant and its relation to the New. He talks about something common that they would all understand, cloth. Cloth shrinks after being washed and dried, if you try to patch old cloth with new cloth it simply breaks away when the new cloth shrinks. He repeats the same lesson with that of wineskins, wine exerts gas as it ages and the wineskin expands to accommodate, if you put new wine in there it can’t expand more than it has and breaks. He is saying that a new creation is required in order for the New Covenant to be fulfilled, we can’t just patch on some DLC and hope it sticks together.

Some consider this saying to be separated from the previous one about the wedding analogy, that Mark is just stitching sayings together when they don’t make sense but I think they’re wrong. A new creation is made when two become one flesh. No patching on the wife to the husband, a new being is made in covenant. The Old Covenant does not need patching, it is beyond fixing, but if a divine marriage took place and new creation was made, that would last and would fix everything that was broken because it would actually be something new.