Chapter # 2 Paragraph # 3 Study # 1
August 6, 2019
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(Download Audio)

⁽⁰⁹³⁾

Thesis:   Mark's use of this record of Jesus' refusal to impose "fasting" upon His disciples was designed to press his readers to develop a deeper grasp of the real issues behind the rejection of Jesus by the "recognized" leadership of Israel.

Introduction:   After two thousand years of "Church" history, it is automatically assumed that the "Jewish" rejection of Jesus was illegitimate. But, for those actually living in the context of Jesus' presence in Israel, it was no small thing for them to have to decide that "Judaism" (both in religious doctrine and in culture) was "of the devil" (a fact established without ambiguity by Jesus' declaration in John 8:44). It is exceedingly difficult for a person who, from birth, has been steeped in a certain religious doctrine and culture, to "buy into" a totally different way of looking at life. It was this reality that moved Mark to "force the issue" by recording Jesus' deliberate refusal to compromise "Grace" with the trappings of "Law".

Mark did this by first presenting Jesus as "eating with tax collectors and sinners" (a horrifying behavior in the eyes of the conservative branch of Jewish theology and practice), and then by presenting Jesus as refusing to "put eating in its place" by insisting upon "the self-restraint of fasting" in his doctrine.

This evening we are going to look into this "clash" of doctrine and practice as it relates particularly to "fasting".

• I. The Occasion of The Clash.
  • A. An "alignment" between "the disciples of John" and "the Pharisees".
    • 1. This is the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ploy that rests upon the power of intimidation through "majority opinion" (this is simply an appeal to the power of the "pride of life" to intimidate).
      • a. This is significant, first, because the majority of Judea considered John a prophet of the true God (Mark 11:32) and, thus, an instructor of right behavior.
      • b. This is also significant, second, because the Pharisees did not believe John to be a legitimate prophet (Mark 11:31) but were willing to use his "status in the eyes of the people" as a way to diminish Jesus' "status in the eyes of the people".
    • 2. This is also Mark's frontal attack upon the attempt by the religious establishment to drive a wedge between "John" and "Jesus".
      • a. Mark did not attempt to sidestep a "hard" question: if "Jesus" is "The One" (as John announced), how is it that He is not in alignment with "John"?
        • 1) Both of the groups make up the identity of the "they" who came and forced a doctrinal issue upon Jesus.
          • a) They "come" (present tense, emphatic historical narrative).
          • b) They "say" (present tense of the word lego because of its importance as a verb of "saying as truth").
        • 2) Both of the groups have a certain level of antagonism toward Jesus.
          • a) At least some of the disciples of John were antagonized by Jesus' ascending popularity (John 3:26) so that they were "in the same camp with the Pharisees" at this point.
          • b) And it has already been established that the Pharisees were also so antagonized (John 12:19 compared with Pilate's awareness in Mark 15:10).
      • b. Mark did make a critical distinction that divided the disciples of John from the Pharisees.
        • 1) Mark makes it clear that Jesus' "lack of alignment" was not only temporary, but also unhypocritical.
          • a) Mark makes John's "fasting" legitimate on two levels.
            • i. John's doctrine of "fasting" was legitimately "rooted": Matthew 9:15.
              • i) "Fasting" is supposed to be "rooted" in real mourning.
              • ii) John's doctrine of "repentance unto forgiveness" assumes real mourning.
            • ii. John's doctrine of "fasting" was an expression of the difference between John and Jesus.
              • i) John believed Jeremiah 17:9 for himself, as well as Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26 and Ezekiel 14:14 and 20: a legitimate basis for mourning.
              • ii) Jesus believed those things also, but not for Himself.
          • b) Mark, thus, makes John's "fasting" unhypocritical.
        • 2) The "fasting" of the Pharisees, on the other hand, was totally hypocritical.
          • a) Since they believed in "salvation by performance" they could not believe in the innate depravity that was taught in the Old Testament texts that John believed.
          • b) Consequently, for the Pharisees, "fasting" was simply a show designed to impress as well as qualify them for "heaven" (Matthew 6:16-18 and Luke 18:12).
  • B. An alignment that was only superficial: at the "practice" level, not the "root" level.
    • 1. Both groups "practiced" fasting.
    • 2. But at the "doctrinal" level, there was a profound distinction at the "Master" level if not at the disciple level.
• II. The Actual Nature of the Clash.
  • A. The distinction between Jesus and the John/Pharisee groups was given in the form of a question.
    • 1. The "question" is, "On what account does this contradiction exist?"
    • 2. That there "seems" to be a contradiction is not in the picture; the contradiction is assumed to be real.
  • B. But the "question" was, in reality, an accusation: Your disciples are out of line and that makes You "out of line".

(return to the top of the article)


This is article #094.
If you wish, you may contact Darrel as darrelcline at this site.