Throughout the second and third chapters of Mark the dominant theme is controversy. We have already seen Jesus in conflict with the teachers of the law over His forgiving the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof (Mark 2:6, 7), His going to the party thrown by Levi-Matthew (verse 16), and His failure to encourage His followers to fast (verse 18). Now we will study four more incidents that place Jesus at the center of conflict: the disciples' plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath (verses 23-28), Jesus' healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), the accusation that He was in league with the devil (verses 22-30), and the tensions within His own family circle (verses 20, 21, 31-35).

Controversy Over the Sabbath
The Gospels record seven Sabbath miracles of Jesus (John 5:1-15, Mark 1:21-28, Mark 1:29-31, Mark 3:1-6, John 9:1-41, Luke 13:10-17, Luke 14:1-4). In each case He healed someone, and in each case the person was not in an emergency situation or condition.

Further, His Sabbath healings all took place publicly, sometimes with the teachers of the law present to witness them. Understandably, what they regarded to be flagrant Sabbathbreaking incensed the teachers, and sharp disputes often resulted from the miracles.

The fact is undeniable that Jesus could have avoided much controversy if He had chosen a different track. He could have waited until after sundown or taken the sick aside and healed them privately. Obviously, He chose to make the Sabbath and His relationship to it a defining feature of His mission.

We need to look carefully at Jesus' actions and words in relation to the Sabbath, seeking to figure out why He took the course He did in fulfilling His mission. And we must also stand back and view His actions and words in light of the entire witness of Scripture--not in a defensive manner, but keeping in mind that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16, KJV), and that each part sheds light on the others.

Many Christians, without studying very much the Bible or history of the early church, think that Jesus abolished the Sabbath. But the big picture shows just the opposite. He Himself said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matt. 5:17, 18). The Sabbath, after all, predates the Fall of humanity. It has its roots in Creation, not salvation. Because Jesus is our Savior, the Sabbath means more to us than it does to the Jews--never any less.

In Jesus' conflict with the religious teachers over the Sabbath, whether it should be kept or which was the day of rest was never an issue. What was at stake was how people should observe the Sabbath. Jesus, by word and deed, broke with the longstanding traditions surrounding the Sabbath, setting it in a new and--to the scribes--uncomfortable framework. And that in turn turned the spotlight on Jesus' authority. Who He was and what right He had to set aside the rabbinical regulations was the real issue behind the Sabbath controversies.

For the Jews, the Sabbath was perhaps the supreme demonstration of loyalty to God. Some later rabbis held that if all Israel would but keep the Sabbath twice, Messiah would come. So the Pharisees, who were sticklers for law, understandably found themselves upset by the conduct of Jesus and His disciples. The religious leaders had elaborated the Sabbath commandment of Exodus 20:8-11 into a complex set of religious customs. These "hedges" around the commandment existed only in oral form in Jesus' day, but later the rabbis codified them into 39 types of activity (in the tractate "Sabbath" in the Talmud) covering regular work, travel, and preparing and eating food.

The Pharisees viewed Jesus and the disciples' going through the grainfield (Mark 2:23, 24) as not merely out for a stroll but as breaking the regulation against traveling on the Sabbath. Further, by picking heads of ripe grain, rubbing off the chaff, and eating the kernels the disciples also broke the law by gathering and preparing food.

Jesus gives an enlightening response to the critics. At first sight He seems to justify one "sin" by another one: He cites the example of David and his men, who ate the consecrated bread that only the priests were supposed to consume. And He adds: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (verse 27).

By His words Jesus radically reorients the purpose of the Sabbath. The teachers of the law had encumbered the Sabbath command with a host of minutiae that made it into a burden instead of a delight. Jesus came to liberate men and women from physical, mental, and spiritual bonds. Inevitably, in the process He challenged the shackles of tradition associated with the Sabbath.

The words are so simple that we easily fail to grasp the radical shift they bring. The Old Testament calls the Sabbath "My [God's] holy day" (Isa. 58:13). Now Jesus is making it humanity's day. It is still God's day, God's holy day, but it is ours also: a day of rejoicing, a day of freedom, a day of praise, a day of blessing.

But there is more. Jesus' reference to David and his men goes far beyond a rather lame excuse by citing someone else who violated a rule. The point of the Davidic citation is that the king, a fugitive from the wrath of Saul although the anointed future ruler, and his men were on a mission (see 1 Sam. 21:1-6). Hungry and hurried, they came to the tabernacle at Nob and asked for food. The priest had nothing to give them except the consecrated bread that had just been replaced with fresh-baked bread. Although normally only the priests ate the leftover bread, the desperate need of David and his men overrode the rule.

And Jesus is on a mission with His disciples. They travel on the Sabbath as He carries out that mission. It overrides the barriers to Sabbath travel specified by the religious teachers. Likewise with the foraging for grain: the disciples are hungry, and the needs of the disciples as they join with Jesus in mission negate the rabbinical rule.

But the real issue is Jesus, not the Sabbath. The Sabbath is merely the point of contention that brings the true concern into sharp focus. What about this Jesus? Does He have authority to reorient understanding of the Sabbath? Does He have a mission that justifies setting aside the traditional rules regarding Sabbath observance?

The passage that follows immediately (Mark 3:1-6) brings the decision about Jesus to razor sharpness. It is set in the synagogue, the most common religious institution of Judaism in Jesus' time or ours. He addresses the religion of the day, confronting it with His claims and His message. The question is not whether the sick should receive help on the Sabbath--not one of giving humanitarian aid or not--but the actions of Jesus. Are they good or bad? And is His message with its implicit claim for who He is a valid one?

"The urgent ministry and message of Jesus about the approaching Kingdom of God is the immediate context of this story. Mark 3:1-2 suggests that his critics already suspected what he would do, and the Gospels contain other accounts of Sabbath healing by Jesus (Luke 14:1-6; 13:10-17; John 5:2-18; 7:22-24; 9:1-17), leading us to suspect that Jesus may have deliberately healed on the Sabbath as a sign of the significance of his works. That is, his healing on the Sabbath linked his miracles with a day that symbolized for ancient Jews the future Kingdom of God, when bondage would cease and the time of joy and messianic celebration would begin. His Sabbath healings then were to be seen as foretastes and signs of the Kingdom he confidently announced. Further, of course, by healing on the Sabbath Jesus forced people to make a decision about his works and message; for if he had not been called by God to herald the coming Kingdom, if he was not what his Sabbath healings claimed him to be, then he was a Sabbath-breaker. In any case, he could not be written down as simply another harmless religious healer. He prevented that by the way he conducted his healings, making them an issue" (Hurtado, p. 36).

Controversy Over Jesus' Power
Mark 3:20-35 contains a story within a story. It begins and ends with an account of the attitude of Jesus' family to Him (verses 20, 21, 31-35), with the criticism by the teachers of the law over the source of Jesus' power coming in between. We find a similar narrative technique elsewhere in Mark's Gospel (Mark 5:21-42; 6:7-32; 11:12-25).

The scribes who had come down to Galilee from Jerusalem, presumably to spy on Jesus, raised a vicious accusation against Him. "He is possessed by Beelzebub!" they charged. "By the prince of demons he is driving out demons" (Mark 3:22). Beelzebub (or Beelzebul, as some manuscripts read) probably arose from the ancient name of a Canaanite god, Baalzebul, which meant "lord of the high place." We find mention of the god in 2 Kings 1:2-6, 16. Here the term is Baalzebub, "lord of the flies"--perhaps a deliberate Jewish corruption to cast scorn on the rival deity to Yahweh.

That the teachers of the law resorted to such an accusation shows the impact of Jesus' miracles. His exorcisms were so many and of such a dramatic nature that His critics could not deny them. They could only respond that He was in league with the devil.

The other Gospels make clear that the religious leaders frequently brought the same charge against Him (Matt. 12:24; Luke 11:15; Matt. 9:34; John 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). Indeed, the view of Jesus as a sorcerer had a long history in Judaism in the Toledoth Jesu. (In modern times, however, many Jewish scholars present a more favorable interpretation.)

Jesus' reply to the accusation exposes its illogic. He gives two short illustrations--a house divided and a kingdom divided--to argue that if Satan is using Him to cast out devils, he is working against himself and will come to an end. No, Jesus' exorcisms cannot result from the devil's power. Rather, they indicate that one stronger than Satan is setting his captives free.

In concluding His defense, Jesus makes a statement that has troubled many Christians: "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:28, 29).

In my first work as a church employee I served for several years as a dean of boys and Bible teacher at a boarding school high in the mountains of India. Most of the students were sons of missionaries, and one day one of them came to see me, deeply troubled. "Sir," he said, "I think I have committed the unpardonable sin. God no longer hears me when I pray. I try to talk to Him, but at the end I don't feel any different."

"Jack [not his real name]," I replied, "you haven't committed the unpardonable sin. The fact that you feel troubled that you might have done so is itself evidence that you have not. A person who commits that sin no longer feels a desire for God or is concerned about their relationship with Him.

"And as for God not seeming to hear your prayers, you are relying on your feelings. Feelings let us down--we can't depend on them. But faith is greater than our feelings. When we pray in the name of Jesus, believing, God does hear and answer, regardless of whether we feel different or not. Sometimes feelings accompany God's answer to our prayers, but often we are not aware of any change. That really doesn't matter, because God always keeps His promise to us."

Larry Hurtado captures Jesus' meaning: "The saying in 3:28-29 distinguishes between saying evil things against the Holy Spirit and all other sins, in that there is no forgiveness for the former. The idea of an unforgivable sin has haunted the minds of sensitive people in all Christian centuries, but all such anxiety is misdirected. As the context makes plain, Jesus' warning is against disregarding his message by calling it Satanic (see esp. 3:30), a quite specific deed. A person doing such a thing would have no concern about Christ's forgiveness for it. So, the very anxiety lest one may have done something that cuts one off from Christ's forgiveness is, ironically, evidence that one believes Christ to be sent from God, and thus proof that one cannot have committed the sin warned against here" (Hurtado, p. 51).

In Ellen White's classic on the life of Christ, The Desire of Ages, she includes an additional insight about the motives of Jesus' critics:

"The Pharisees to whom Jesus spoke this warning did not themselves believe the charge they brought against Him. There was not one of those dignitaries but had felt drawn toward the Saviour. They had heard the Spirit's voice in their own hearts declaring Him to be the Anointed of Israel, and urging them to confess themselves His disciples. In the light of His presence they had realized their unholiness, and had longed for a righteousness which they could not create. But after their rejection of Him it would be too humiliating to receive Him as the Messiah. Having set their feet in the path of unbelief, they were too proud to confess their error. And in order to avoid acknowledging the truth, they tried with desperate violence to dispute the Savior's teaching. The evidence of His power and mercy exasperated them. They could not prevent the Saviour from working miracles, they could not silence His teaching; but they did everything in their power to misrepresent Him and to falsify His words. Still the convicting Spirit of God followed them, and they had to build up many barriers in order to withstand its power. The mightiest agency that can be brought to bear upon the human heart was striving with them, but they would not yield" (p. 322).

Her words give me pause. The Bible warns us that in the last days demonic forces will be at work, with signs and miracles that would, if possible, deceive God's people. Jesus tells us to be on our guard lest we be swept up in the display of counterfeit power (Mark 13:22, 23). His counsels in Mark 3:28, 29, however, provide an important counterweight. It seems to me that, while staying alert, we should be slow to assign anyone who performs miracles or exorcisms to being in league with the devil. They may be, but they also may not. Satan is the accuser. Let's leave the work of accusations to him, while we do the work God has appointed to us--proclaiming the good news.

Controversy in the Family
Although the evaluation of Jesus' ministry by His own family members was not as vicious as that of the teachers of the law, it was nonetheless harsh. "He is out of his mind," they said, and they decided to take action. They would remove Him from the crowds pressing around Him and take control of His life (verses 20, 21).

The incident reveals a high degree of tension in the family. It exposes how different Jesus was from His brothers and sisters and how far apart was their concept of God's will for His mission from His. To we who believe, who have accepted that Jesus was the Son of God and our Lord and Savior, the family's viewpoint seems startling and almost incomprehensible. At the same time, however, it reinforces our sense that Mark is telling us the truth as he shares information that we do not expect.

Did Jesus' mother agree with the family sentiment that He was out of His mind? We cannot tell. Verse 21 simply assigns it to "his family." But Mary did go along with Jesus' brothers when they went to take Him home and take charge of His life (verse 31). Perhaps Mary, bewildered and unsure of what should be done, simply went along with the plan. Elsewhere Scripture portrays her as pondering the meaning and mission of her remarkable child Jesus (Luke 2:19, 51), so the decision to change Jesus probably originated with the brothers rather than with her.

Elsewhere Mark tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. He also informs us that there were sisters, but does not name them (Mark 6:1-3). Counting Jesus, the family had at least seven children, and this fact has given rise to considerable speculation. It especially puzzles those who follow Roman Catholic dogma and Eastern Orthodox tradition that holds that Mary was not only a virgin at Jesus' conception (as Protestants believe) but remained forever a virgin, never having sexual relations with her husband and therefore never bearing any children after Jesus. This tradition arose early in Christianity under the influence of ideas of celibacy, poverty, and other forms of self-denial that had gained a following among believers. Centuries later the perpetual virginity of Mary became official teaching of the Roman and Eastern branches of the church.