Jesus heals a man with a withered hand

Mark 3.1-6

 

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, ‘Come forward.’ Then he said to them, ‘Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?’ But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

So, we’re quite early on in Jesus’ ministry and Mark flags up for us the ongoing theme of conflict. On this occasion we aren’t told who the mysterious “they” are: over officious Synagogue leaders or the ubiquitous Pharisees? It doesn’t much matter because what we learn is that even at this early stage Jesus had ruffled enough feathers that the religious authorities were looking to accuse him. In more modern terms it must seem a bit MI5 or the East German Stasi, the Iranian Savak or the Russian NKVD. You can imagine dossiers being prepared, witnesses being interviewed, spies and informers sent out and so on. Perhaps the man with the withered hand was a plant, wittingly or unwittingly placed where Jesus would see him. If that is what happened, then there are two important admissions on the part of the Pharisees: firstly they believed that he had power to heal the sick. There isn’t any indication in all of scripture that they doubted the miracles. They couldn’t, because there were so many examples.

And secondly they acknowledged that when a helpless man was placed in his path, he would have compassion on him and heal him, even if it was the Sabbath.

I sometimes think when we read the Gospel stories that we don’t fully appreciate the implications of what we’re reading. This plot is more than a few over-zealous Pharisees getting a bit overwrought about an uneducated peasant getting his religious observance wrong. This is serious and nasty stuff.

And of course this incident looks odd to us, but then isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing? The idea that doing good, any form of good, would be seen as wrongdoing is just bonkers to us today and the fact that this story has a healing at its core makes it seem even madder. Surely healing someone must be right up there in the ranking of good deeds? Who could possibly take offence at that? Well, the religious authorities because in their theology of the Sabbath, the only healing which might take place on that day was one that saved life. This man had had a withered hand all his life, what difference would one day make? That was the logic. Theology verses compassion and the age-old conflict between vested interest and change.

What we mustn’t do here is think of Jesus as an innocent abroad who walked unknowingly into a trap. Trap or not, Jesus new what he was doing: he took up the challenge because he wanted people to see what he was doing. Rather than track down the man later privately so as not to make waves, he chose to cure him in public, in full view of all.

Should we be surprised by this? Well in Mark’s first chapter we hear that after John the Baptist’s arrest Jesus tells his followers that “….The Kingdom of God has come near” and up to this point we’ve already seen examples of Jesus teaching, healing and forgiving sins – which also upset the religious authorities – and another breaking of the Sabbath rules when Jesus and his disciples plucked ears of corn to eat. All of these things were done, and seen to be done in public. This wasn’t a man who was frightened of publicity. What would be the point of trying to usher in a new order quietly and in private?

What I find ironic is that the Pharisees weren’t able to answer him: not just on this occasion but on numerous others throughout the gospels, but rather than take time to reflect and to re-evaluate their own position they doubled down. “We must be seen to be right. He must be seen to be wrong and if we can’t shut him up, he has to go!” Vested interest again. And Jesus knows what they’re thinking. Mark tells us that he, “….looked on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” Their hatred proved their hypocrisy. Men who were supposed to teach and promote the ways of God, conspired to kill an innocent man. They proved they’d stop at nothing to advance and protect their cause. These were not servants of God; these were sinful men hidden in self-proclaimed righteousness.

So what are we to make of this passage? How does it speak to us today? In order to make this passage real we have to see an application or it remains just an interesting piece of religious history.

What are we going to do about it?

For me there are two main themes, but of course there may be others.

The first thing that strikes me is the importance of Jesus having liberated someone from something that was holding him back. If we think of the people we regularly come into contact with or, indeed those we may just bump into, how many of those are in need of Jesus’ healing touch, his touch of liberation? What are the blocks to that release? It may be a lack of faith, “I don’t do God.” Do we have a role there as latter-day disciples as in our witness we seek to live and speak the Gospel?

Are they held back because of institutional issues? Look around us at poverty, the use of food banks, social inequality and every sort of prejudice you care to name. Do we have a wider role as disciples to be prophetic in our challenge to political vested interest? Should we be more overt in our criticism of government policy - governments of any colour, I’d add - where “the least of these my brothers and sisters” are being held back through social injustices?

What is our role as disciples in situations which are complex and sometimes scary to get involved with? What’s our role as disciples when legitimate groups such as Greenpeace and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade have been identified by the Home Secretary as extremist organisations alongside neo-Nazis and jihadists? And I’m afraid I can’t answer that question for you because in the words of St. Paul to the Philippians we have each to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” What is the Spirit leading each of us to do or say in such situations?

My second thought was about being Christ-like agents of change in our own churches as we challenge some of those outdated ideas and attitudes that get in the way of the Kingdom of God coming closer. The Pharisees are alive and well and living in our midst.

We talked about truth and post truth/fake news last week and how the new normal seems to be political leaders who have no shame in indulging in bare-faced lying to their adoring followers. How have we come to this? But it exists in the church too as most of us have encountered. The church too often seems to have been slow to react and has found itself on the wrong side of history. I’m not sure what we do about the great tides of history as individual disciples except to acknowledge that the church - or perhaps to be entirely fair, some of its members - does get it wrong from time to time, and at the heart of those problems are often the modern Pharisees who want to put tradition or an inauthentic application of theology as a justification or who worry about rocking the boat, so don’t take the action they should. Don’t believe that National Synod is all Christian love, sweetness and light. Synod is full of religious politicians pushing their agendas and sometimes those agendas are about resisting change and keeping the status quo, perhaps even pushing back on some things to the way things used to be. There are cliques and alliances – some unlikely but temporary.

In the context of today’s passage I wonder what Jesus would say.

It’s one thing to have a long held antipathy to women priests or to believe that gay men and women shouldn’t be in ministry if those views are held as private matters of conscience, perhaps only ever discussed with the priest. It is when the holder of those views attempts to make them a public rallying point for dissent that the rest of us need to sit up and take notice. Silence is often seen as a form of agreement, of tacit collusion.

“We can’t possibly have guitars in church. It’s unchristian.

“We have to have choral evensong. It’s part of our tradition.”

“I think we should go back to 1662 for all services. The language is beautiful.”

“You can’t remove the pews in this church. We’ve always worshipped this way.”

Hymn books; children in church; a minor change to the liturgy and so on.

I’ve heard all of these arguments at some time or another and I guess many of you have too.

These things aren’t wrong aspirations as such but what might be the vested interest in these common examples? It’s a vested interest against change and development, much as the attitude of the Pharisees in today’s Gospel segment. And just like the Pharisees in that story, the modern Pharisee wishes to close down debate and have things as they always have been because change is threatening.

What’s our role as disciples when we encounter behaviour in the church which we know is damaging to the Gospel and which will damage the faith of some and hold others back from faith? St. Paul in Romans, “I urge you brothers and Sisters to keep an eye on those who cause dissentions and offence ….. avoid them.” And that’s probably enough for most of us should the occasion ever arise: we don’t want to cause discord over petty disputes and arguments – or we’d never have another PCC meeting: more serious issues should be left to parish priests and arch-deacons in the first instance but we should never be afraid to challenge bullying or any expression of prejudice and discrimination or we should  raise concerns discretely with the clergy about inappropriate behaviour, particularly when we perceive that someone is trying to groom other members of the congregation to a particular side. Vested interest exists in the church, in individual congregations, in deaneries and dioceses: the Pharisee tendency is alive and well in the church and we shouldn’t give such people an easy ride when we encounter it.

Jesus asked, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm? And he was grieved at their hardness of heart.” Let’s ponder on that in the week to come.