Sermon from June 4, 2000
A most human desire caused the four Gospels to be written. People who had never seen Him wanted to know, "What was Jesus like?" No one gives a more human picture of Him than the Gospel of Mark. Also, and for a variety of reasons, people who had heard the first preachers talk about Jesus wanted to know, "Why did He have to die so young?" They were not asking for a theological explanation. People spoke about Him in such glowing terms that it made no sense that anyone would want to kill Him. The Gospels give a rich answer to that question. Part of the answer lies in the remarkable sequence of stories that make up Mark 2:1-3:6.

Many people wondered if Jesus had come to overthrow Roman rule over Israel. He showed the kind of authority you need to start a political revolution, especially by His words and deeds in Mark 1. However, His words and deeds in Mark 2 pointed to a different kind of revolution. Revolutionaries never go unchallenged. The challenge to Jesus' different kind of revolution showed up powerfully in Mark 2:1-3:6.

In these verses Mark crafted a sequence of five episodes in which conflict between Jesus and some Jewish authorities escalated dangerously. We can watch the escalation intensify in the way they responded to Jesus' actions.

When Jesus forgave the paralytic, they thought to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" When Jesus refused to keep a kosher table and ate with sinners and tax collectors, they expressed their thoughts, but not to Jesus. They cornered His disciples and said, "Why does he eat with 'sinners' and tax collectors?" When they saw that He and His disciples did not practice fasting, they asked Him about it directly but apparently with a civil tongue. "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?"

But when His disciples plucked grain on the Sabbath, people not only asked Him about it directly, but you cannot miss a change in the tone of their question. The word look conveys overt hostility. "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" Mark puts the final stroke on his portrait of increasing hostility in Mark 3:6. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

For people who wanted to know why Jesus had to die so young, this sequence makes part of the answer clear. Jesus offended His fellow Jews on sensitive religious issues so deeply that they considered Him a threat to Israel's national interests. Fairly early in Mark's Gospel, putting Him to death appears as a desirable way of doing away with His perceived threat. Let's look more closely at the events immediately preceding that terrible plot.

Verses 1-2 say, Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some 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. Have you ever sensed someone watching you with evil intent? It is no fun.

I have tried to help you see why we might be sympathetic with the teachers of the Jewish law and the suspicion, intimidation and blunt questions with which they responded to Jesus' highly irregular actions. Without doubt He made people angry. The cavalier way in which they thought He behaved fueled their anger. God's law and God's people had enough antagonists among the Romans; Jesus seemed to undermine them from within. That is not unreasonable concern; it is not unreasonable anger. But sitting there in the Capernaum synagogue with arms folded and looking for a way to find fault with Him undermines any sympathy we might have for them. Something more than love for God's law is eating at their souls.

Jesus knew what was going on. Verse 3: Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone." Then, He posed a question that both challenged their evil intentions and gave them a chance to rethink them. Verse 4: Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?"

"Yes, Jesus, but why can't you wait until tomorrow? The man's hand will be just as withered tomorrow, and you will have just as much power to heal tomorrow as you do today. Why not bend just a little bit and honor our Sabbath tradition?" Someone could have asked that. If they had, Jesus could have responded in language we have already heard. "Yes, but no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins." The truth is: Jesus was precipitating a crisis. He was saying to Israel, "Let me show you what being a Jew is all about. Let me show you what God really chose us to be."

People in authority were going to have to decide about Him. The ad hoc meeting in Capernaum among guardians of the old wineskins showed that some of them had already decided. That is why, as verse 4 describes their response to Jesus' question, they remained silent. I hate that creepy silence of people who already know what they are going to do, and nothing you say, nothing you do will change it. Verse 5 reassures me that my revulsion is not all wrong.

Verse 5 offers a unique look into the soul of Jesus. He 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.

I said a moment ago that no one gives a more human picture of what Christ was like than the Gospel of Mark. Here we see His anger and His distress at the willful resistance of His adversaries. Here Mark says their willful resistance came out of stubborn hearts. A more literal rendering would be hard hearts. Their capacity to love had somehow become rigid and unresponsive – so much so they were prepared to kill.

Whatever sympathy we might have for them vanishes before their silent, rigid hatred. The man whose withered hand was healed would disagree with them. So would the tax collectors and "sinners" who found themselves in the company of a truly good man, who really cared for them even if He didn't particularly care for their lifestyle and sometimes told them so. And whom do you think the former paralytic would side with?

Participating in this Communion service is a definite taking of sides. To eat this bread and take this cup is to say, "My loyalty is with Christ. When push comes to shove, I will side with Him, so help me, God." Here at Communion is a good time for us to remember and renew that pledge.

The other side of this matter is also true. Communion is a definite taking of sides on God's part. In the bread and cup God is saying, "My loyalty is with you, my people. When push comes to shove, I will side with you." Jesus embodied God's merciful intention toward us all by the way He took the side of human need, even though it brought upon Him the lethal hostility of His own people. So, eat, drink and be reassured of His unfailing love.