Mark 3:1-6 meaning

The parallel Gospel accounts for Mark 3:1-6 are Matthew 12:9-14 and Luke 6:6-11.

Mark continues retelling Jesus’s confrontations with the Pharisees. In the previous chapter (Mark 2), the Pharisees clashed with Jesus over

• His claim to have the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:8-12)
• His celebrating with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:16-17)
• His apparent lack of fasting (Mark 2:18-22)
• His disciples’ eating grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28)

Jesus ended His confrontation with the Pharisees over their Sabbath rules with the proclamation: “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).

Mark 3 begins with another confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees about the Sabbath:

He entered again into a synagogue (v 1a).

The pronoun—He—refers to Jesus. He entered into a synagogue again. A synagogue was a local place of worship where scripture readings and teachings were regularly held. Synagogues served as community centers for social gatherings and worship and acted as the local headquarters for each town's group of Pharisees. By entering a synagogue, Jesus was entering the Pharisees' domain.

Luke reports that Jesus was teaching that day (Luke 6:6a). Only those who had been invited to teach in a synagogue could teach. This means the Pharisees of this synagogue intentionally invited Jesus to come teach. Since the beginning of His ministry, Jesus had been invited to teach in multiple synagogues throughout Galilee (Mark 1:21, 1:39). Previously, Jesus may have been invited to teach because the Pharisees were curious about Jesus and His great powers. But this time, they were inviting Him to teach so they could trap Him.

In this synagogue a man was there whose hand was withered (v 1b).

This man was likely very poor, as his condition would have made it challenging for him to find work or earn a living. Luke adds that it was specifically his right hand which was withered (Luke 6:6b). If this man was right-hand-dominant, as is the case for most people, finding work and earning a living would have been even more difficult.

This man likely also faced social rejection, as it was commonly believed at the time that a person’s handicap was a result of some sin they had committed against God, and that their disability was a form of divine punishment. The pervasiveness of this belief is illustrated by the following quote from the Gospel of John:

"And His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?'"
(John 9:2)

Back to Mark.

The man with the withered hand was almost certainly a member of this local synagogue community. The Pharisees were familiar with him; he was under their teaching and spiritual care. Their responsibility was to minister to him. However, in this instance, instead of ministering to him as a person, the Pharisees used him as bait to trap Jesus. The Pharisees may have even taken steps to ensure that the man with the withered hand was present on the day Jesus came into their synagogue to teach.

They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him (v 2).

The pronoun—they—refers to the Pharisees and scribes (see Luke 6:7). The scribes were religious lawyers. The scribes’ presence as revealed by Luke suggests that Jesus’s teaching in this synagogue on this Sabbath was carefully orchestrated.

Mark 3:2 confirms that the Pharisees, working with the religious lawyers, had indeed invited Jesus to teach in their synagogue on the Sabbath, knowing that this man with a withered hand would be there.

Jesus had recently declared, “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). The Pharisees understood correctly that Jesus was referring to Himself with this claim, and they were now challenging Him to prove it. They were daring Jesus, “Okay, ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ if you have authority over the Sabbath, tell us whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?"

If Jesus healed the man with a withered hand, they would accuse Him of breaking their religious laws concerning the Sabbath. They had manufactured as many as 1,500 specific Sabbath regulations and they interpreted them to the utmost extreme. And they were zealous to prosecute Jesus if they determined He broke one of their rules.

Here are a few examples of many of their regulations that forbid a physician from healing on the Sabbath:

“One may not apply wine or vinegar to a wound on the Sabbath, but one may anoint it with oil or use rose oil in order not to cause pain."
(Mishnah. Shabbat 14:3)

“One may not set a bone on the Sabbath. If a bone protruded, one may not set it, but one may put cold water on it."
(Mishnah. Shabbat 22:6)

“If one has pain in his throat, they may put medicine into his mouth on the Sabbath, because of danger to life; but in any other case, they may not heal on the Sabbath.
(Mishnah. Shabbat 22:6)

“One may not straighten the limbs of a child on the Sabbath."
(Mishnah. Shabbat 22:6)

These examples highlight a few of their religious regulations forbidding a physician from working on the Sabbath. All of their 1,500 Sabbath laws were extrapolated from God’s commandment which He gave to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:8-11, Deuteronomy 5:12-15). Even their own Mishnah acknowledged the endless expansions and refashioning of God’s original Sabbath law:

“Laws concerning shabbat…are like mountains hung from a hair: they have few verses and many laws.”
(Mishnah. Chagigah 1:8)

Matthew’s Gospel reports that the Pharisees even went so far as to present the man to Jesus,

“And they questioned Jesus, asking, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?’—so that they might accuse Him.”
(Matthew 12:10)

Healing the man would have been a socially daring act that would have defied their religious tradition. If Jesus healed the man whose hand was withered, the Pharisees would accuse Jesus of violating their Sabbath laws.

But their trap was multi-layered.

If Jesus chose not to heal the man's withered hand, the Pharisees would accuse Him of being a blasphemous imposter who falsely presented Himself as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).

Either way, they would be able to accuse and defame Jesus in front of the entire synagogue.

Whichever way Jesus acted, the scribes and Pharisees had Him pinned. Or so they thought.

But Jesus rejected their illegitimate framing. He likely noticed them watching Him closely. As God, He knew the hearts, thoughts, and motivations of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 12:25, 22:18, Mark 2:8; Luke 5:22, 11:17, 16:15).

He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” (v 3)

By inviting the man whose hand was withered to come forward, Jesus reframed the argument from a legal matter to a human one. This was not academic or legal theory. This was a matter of flesh and blood that greatly affected a man and his entire life.

Jesus then addressed the Pharisees.

And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” (v 4a).

Jesus skillfully reframed the issue from “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (the Pharisees claimed it was unlawful to heal) to “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?”

This shift exposes the heart of the Sabbath law. God’s commandments were not intended to restrict acts of mercy or love. They were given to promote life and goodness. Jesus challenges the Pharisees’ rigid interpretation, revealing that neglecting or forbidding good on the Sabbath—especially when life is at stake—amounts to harm or even complicity in evil. His teaching embodies the spirit of the law which prioritizes compassion over legalism. (See Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13, 12:7, “I desire compassion, not sacrifice”).

The structure of His question suggests that everyone would rightly agree with doing good and saving a life rather than letting it be destroyed. Jesus’s question implies that this was a common and accepted practice among the people; no one, including the Pharisees, believed that it was unlawful to do good or save a life on the Sabbath.

In Matthew’s account, Jesus uses the specific imagery of a sheep that has fallen into a pit on the Sabbath. He asks, “Will [the owner] not take hold of it and lift it out?” (Matthew 12:11). The implied answer was "Yes,” the owner would take his sheep out the pit because it was good and life-saving to do so. A man, made in God's image, is infinitely more valuable than a sheep.

God did not prohibit people from helping others who were in need on the Sabbath. As teachers of God's Law, the Pharisees should have understood this and recognized that their rules prevented people from showing love by helping someone with their infirmity. It is evident that the Pharisees were more concerned with themselves than with the wellbeing of others.

Instead of the Pharisees trapping Jesus, Jesus reversed the situation, shaming the Pharisees and publicly exposing their hypocrisy and lack of compassion in their own synagogue.

Acts of mercy and necessity were allowed on the Sabbath. And if it was appropriate and necessary to save the life of a sheep on the Sabbath, how much better (more good) was it to heal a human life on the Sabbath?

The Pharisees were unprepared for Jesus to respond to their trap this way.

But they kept silent (v 4).

If they did respond—then they would be unable to trap Jesus.

If they responded—“No, it is not lawful to do good or to save life on the Sabbath” then they would be exposed as being the religious frauds they were.

If they responded—“Yes, it is lawful to do good or to save life on the Sabbath” then they would be agreeing that Jesus should heal the man with the withered hand.

Either way they would not be able to accuse Jesus, which was their main goal and the only reason they brought Him to their synagogue where the man with the withered hand was on that Sabbath.

Jesus gave the Pharisees a chance to consider His question. If there was anything wrong with His line of questioning in verse 4, they would have spoken up. Since none did, they implicitly agreed with His point, even if they resented Him for avoiding their trap. Jesus affirmed the truth and goodness of God’s perfect Law, demonstrating its superiority over the Pharisees’ Sabbath rules.

Because the Pharisees did not respond to Jesus’s question, He looked around at them while they remained silent. It was likely a tense moment:

After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart (v 5a).

Jesus looked at them with anger because they were more concerned about their rules than they were a suffering man and neighbor. The Pharisees were religious leaders. They were the ones who were supposed to be modeling God’s love for people, but instead they had a severe hardness of heart against anyone who did not honor their rules and authority. Jesus was grieved by their self-righteous attitude and hypocrisy.

By reframing the question, Jesus effectively turned the trap back on the Pharisees and scribes.

Psalm 7 describes what happens when the wicked try to ensnare the righteous:

“He [the wicked] conceives mischief and brings forth falsehood.
He has dug a pit and hollowed it out,
And has fallen into the hole which he made.”
(Psalm 7:14b-15)

He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored (v 5b).

With the Pharisees looking on in defeated silence, Jesus returned the focus from the realm of trivial religious legalities to the heart of the matter—the man who was suffering with a withered hand.

Jesus told the man to “Stretch out your hand.” This command served to make this moment an act of faith on the man’s behalf and it served as a bold and undeniable piece of evidence that Jesus was indeed “the Son of Man [and] Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).

The man had faith and obeyed Jesus. He stretched it out. And Jesus healed him—his hand was miraculously restored.

In this miracle, Jesus achieved three things simultaneously.

First, He showed compassion for the man with the withered hand, enabling him to use both hands for work, earn a better living, and gain the respect of others.

Second, through this display of power, Jesus demonstrated that He was indeed who He claimed to be: "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28). As the Lord of the Sabbath, He defines what is right regarding the Sabbath, not the Pharisees (or anyone else).

Third, this miracle exposed the emptiness and backwardness of the Pharisees’ teachings, undermining their authority over the people.

The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him (v 6).

Humiliated and angered by Jesus’s reversal of their trap and His authoritative display of truth and love, the Pharisees become enraged and start plotting against Him. Mark adds that the Pharisees began conspiring with the Herodians.

The Herodians were the Romanized Jews who were part of Herod’s court. The Herodians represented Rome’s power in Judea and they lived pagan lifestyles like the Romans.

If the Pharisees were the keepers of Jewish culture—the Herodians represented their worst opposition. The fact that the Pharisees immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Jesus, as to how they might destroy Him, reveals the black depths of their desperate hatred of Him.

While Mark had previously described tense encounters with the Pharisees, this is the first time he reveals their murderous intent.

They were given a chance to be humbled and repent, to return to the true meaning of the Law and shift from serving themselves to serving the people they were meant to shepherd. Instead, they intensified their opposition to Jesus, disregarding the remarkable power they had just witnessed.