Mark 3:1-6 | Session 11

Mark 3:1-6 | Healing The Man With the Withered Hand

Verse 1 -

In Mark 2, a man with "palsy" (paralysis) was healed. Now, we are introduced to a man with a "withered hand." The phrase is translated from the Greek word ξηραίνω (xaraino), which means "dried up." Words like "xeriscape" (a landscape designed to use very little water, for desert areas) and "xerox" (a copy process using dry toner rather than wet ink) are derived from the same root word. There is no exact medical diagnosis that can be given, but atrophy from some source (disease, injury, etc.) could be the issue.

This is taking place in the synagogue, once again reminding us that Jesus “was a minister of the circumcision” (Romans 15:8) and His audience was, therefore, under the Law. Any application of the text to the Body of Christ should be indirect because we are after the Cross and free from the Law (Rom. 7).

Verse 2 -

In the context of the previous segment, we see a reference to the Pharisees: "they watched him" (Mark 2:24). The text tells us what they were looking for ("whether he would heal him on the Sabbath"). More importantly, it tells us why they were looking for this act ("that they might accuse him"). Mark wants the reader to understand the Pharisees' agenda.

Once again, we observe that while the populace had strongly accepted Jesus and His Messianic claims and actions, the leadership was now strongly opposed to Him because of those same claims and actions.

Verse 3 -

This verse is the set-up for a showdown. Jesus knows who is watching, and why. But rather than a “don’t rock the boat” strategy, Jesus pushes the issue and calls the man to “stand forth.” What refreshing boldness and leadership! Many political operatives might have told Jesus to “leave well enough alone.” After all, a withered hand was not life-threatening and certainly could wait until the next day.

Verse 4 -

Jesus then directly confronted the Pharisees. Clearly everyone knew that this was the “elephant in the room,” and Jesus addressed it. He addressed it with a few questions of which all knew the answer, but would put the Pharisees in an awkward position to answer. Clearly doing good on the Sabbath was lawful, as well as saving life rather than killing it. But the oral tradition of the Pharisees would require a delay in the doing of good or the saving of life until the Sabbath was past. Their traditions had become more important to them than both the letter and the spirit of the Law. Were they to answer, this would become obvious, and thus “they held their peace.”

One wonders if Jesus had passages such as Hosea 6:6 in mind, “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Or perhaps Exodus 23:5, “If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.” And while there are no specific instructions to do good deeds on the Sabbath, the fact that it was made for resting from labors would never inherently imply leaving someone in misery so that you can rest.

Verse 5 -

Jesus “looked round about on them with anger.” This tells us much about the character of Jesus. He was fully human and expressed anger when appropriate, as he did on a number of occasions.

👉 Below are the times Jesus displayed what most would describe as anger.

Clearing the Temple (John 2:13-17; Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46): While the text does not explicitly say that Jesus was angry, his actions in driving out the money changers and overturning their tables imply strong emotions. His indignation at the misuse of the temple for commercial gain is evident.
The Healing of the Man with a Withered Hand (Mark 3:1-6): This is the passage you're referring to, where Mark explicitly says Jesus was angry (or grieved) at the hardness of people's hearts.
Jesus's Rebuke of Peter (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33): When Peter tries to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem to suffer and die, Jesus sharply rebukes him, saying, "Get behind me, Satan!" This reaction can be seen as an expression of strong emotion, though not necessarily anger.
The Disciples Preventing Children from Coming to Jesus (Mark 10:13-16; Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 18:15-17): The disciples were rebuked by Jesus for hindering the children from coming to Him. Some translations describe Jesus as being "indignant" at this, reflecting a strong emotional response.
The Fig Tree Cursing (Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25): Jesus's cursing of the fig tree for not bearing fruit might be seen as an implicit indication of displeasure or frustration, though the text does not specify that He was angry.
The Rebuke of the Pharisees (Matthew 23; Luke 11:37-54): In these passages, Jesus sharply criticizes the religious leaders of His day. While the text does not explicitly describe Jesus as being angry, the strong language and stern rebukes can be interpreted as reflecting intense emotion.

In the instance described in Mark 3, what made Jesus angry was "the hardness of their hearts." This idiomatic phrase seems to refer to spiritual blindness caused by an unwillingness to let preconceived notions give way to Biblical revelation. In this case, the Pharisees were hard-hearted because they believed that oral tradition was more important than the letter of the law.

Jesus was not about to halt His ministry because of the powerful presence of Pharisees. He healed the man’s hand as the man stretched it out for all to see.

Verse 6 -

If there was any doubt before, now we explicitly know that the Pharisees desire is to figure out “how they might destroy him.”

To figure out how to do this, they “took counsel with the Herodians.”

There is very limited information on the Herodians, who are only mentioned in Mark 3:6, Mark 12:13, and Matthew 22:16. The limited biblical information, along with the fact that they are not mentioned by Josephus, means that most of our information about them is speculative. From their name, however, we can assume that they were either part of the Herodian dynasty or supportive of it. The Herodian dynasty ruled as client kings under Roman authority. As such, they would have been proponents of a political status quo and against any Messianic figure, following the example of King Herod, who famously ordered the slaughter of the innocents in order to avoid any Messianic competition for the throne.

The Pharisees were generally more concerned with Jewish law and tradition, whereas the Herodians were presumably more politically motivated. While the Pharisees often opposed Roman influence and sought to maintain Jewish autonomy, the Herodians were probably very accommodating to Roman rule. The collaboration of the two groups, therefore, appears to be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." They were united in their opposition to Jesus, who was seen as a threat to both their religious authority (in the case of the Pharisees) and political stability (in the case of the Herodians).

We could speculate that the Herodians were the political architects of the scheme to have Jesus crucified for insurrection.

About this episode