Inductive Study Instructions
Inductive Bible study is an approach to God’s Word focusing on three basic steps that move from a focus on specific details to a more general, universal principle. Through these three steps, we apply inductive reasoning, which is defined as the attempt to use information about a specific situation to draw a conclusion. The steps are observation (what does it say?), interpretation (what does it mean?), and application (what does it mean for my life?). Inductive Bible study is a valuable tool in understanding and applying the principles of God’s Word. In an inductive study everyone participates. We will be working through as much of a chapter of Marks Gospel each week, taking turns to do the following:
- Read a section of scripture, then summarise in your own words (What does it say).
- Read the related Companion material below, then summarise one point in your own words (what does it mean)
- What does it mean for your life.
Reader 1 The Gospel of Mark – Chapter 2
In chapter 2 there is a change. The incidents recorded by Mark now contain the beginnings of opposition to Jesus’ ministry. While the popularity of Jesus increased among the people, the Jewish leaders began to question his authority to teach and to do the things he was doing. This would eventually lead to the plans to kill him. There are four incidents in Chapter 2: The healing of a paralysed man, the calling of Levi to become a disciple, the question of fasting and the question of the Sabbath. All of these led to Jesus being challenged by the Jewish leadership. And this, in turn, resulted in Jesus giving very pithy statements about the nature of his ministry and the truths of the spiritual Kingdom of God he was revealing.
Mark 2: 1 – 12 Paralysed Man with Four Friends
The first incident in this chapter is the remarkable healing of a man who was paralysed. His friends made a hole in a roof and lowered the man to the feet of Jesus.
Jesus was back home in Capernaum. He was probably at the home of Simon and Andrew, for we know Jesus had stayed there before. Peter retold this story whenever he preached his gospel. He would never have forgotten the way his roof had been partly demolished. Also, as had happened previously, a large crowd gathered around the house.
Mud brick houses had flat, lathed, thatched roofs that could be partly demolished to lower large items, that wouldn’t fit through doorways, into a house. Mud brick houses had external stairways to the flat roof. The roof was a popular place for entertaining and sleeping during the hot summer months.
The healing is noteworthy because Jesus deliberately linked sickness with sin and forgiveness. From the interaction with the scribes that followed, we can see it was a deliberate statement by Jesus to cause confrontation with the scribes on the matter of his identity. It was not a teaching to link all illness with personal sin.
Jesus’ statement, “Son, your sins are forgiven,” brought an immediate reaction from the scribes. Most likely these teachers of the law had come from Jerusalem to Galilee to check out the new teacher who was gaining so much local attention. From the very beginning, Jewish leaders wanted to know who Jesus was and by what authority he taught and did miracles.
I don’t think they expected to hear such blatant blasphemy. They knew the only one who could forgive sins was God. If Jesus really was being serious, he was claiming to have the authority of God! And so to prove he did have God’s authority to forgive, Jesus told the paralysed man to get up, roll up his mat and go home.
The miracle resulted in the crowd being truly amazed, while the scribes are left distressed by this demonstration of apparently blasphemy.
The faith of the paralysed man was shown by his agreement to be taken to see Jesus. It was even possible he initiated his friend’s actions continued to encourage them to take the extreme measure of removing part of the roof. The faith Jesus saw was in the hearts of all five men. As with the leper in chapter 1, we note that faith was shown by the excessive expression of faith. This was not just an idle thought that Jesus could heal, but a determination of faith that led to an unusual desperate action. An observation we shall see again and again in Mark.
The self-identifying title Son of Man is used sparingly by Jesus in these early chapters of Mark’s gospel. Of the 14 times it is used in the gospel, Jesus used it of himself and mostly in reference to his suffering and impending death. These references are from Chapter 8 onwards.
Son of Man was a complex title with a number of nuances. Listeners knew it to be a messianic title for a promised deliverer. It also spoke of Jesus’ humanity even while he was forgiving sins, which at the same time alluded to his deity. It reminded others of the way the title was used by the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel. Jesus saw himself as the fulfilment of those prophecies. It was also a title that referred to the end times with the coming of divine judgement upon the nations.
Reader 2 Mark 2: 13 – 17 Levi, Follow Me
Jesus saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at a tax collectors booth. Similar to the four fishermen mentioned in chapter 1, Jesus said, “Follow me.” Immediately, Levi left his booth and followed Jesus. Later, Levi took Jesus home for dinner. Levi also invited his tax collector friends. This is probably a social set that did not attend the synagogue. Today we’d say they were secular or non-practicing Jews.
The problem for Bible students is the identity of Levi. In the parallel passage in Luke, he is also called Levi. But in Matthew’s gospel, this tax collector is identified as Matthew, himself.
Also, there is no Levi recorded in any of the lists of the 12 apostles. Here, he was given the identifier as the son of Alphaeus. But the only son of Alphaeus listed in the 12 apostles is James the son of Alphaeus. Is he the same man with two names? If so then Matthew is a third name. Most unlikely. Are James and Levi brothers, and only James was called to be an apostle? If so, why mention Levi at all? There is without doubt a really good reason for this, but it seems to have been lost. We know the identifier was used to distinguish one man from another or to link him with a person who was well known to the readers. I think that Levi is Matthew who had a brother called James.
Levi invited Jesus to a meal at his house. It appears that it was an “open house” for many of his followers were included along with Levi’s friends.
Verse 16 tells us the problem that this caused. “When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’”
In the New Testament narrative of the life of Jesus, four groups of religious authority are mentioned: Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes (teachers of the law), and priests. These groups were not completely separate. Sadducees were of a liberal theological persuasion and often aligned with the priests. Pharisees were very conservative and aligned with the scribes. All four groups eventually came to hate Jesus. We’ll see in Chapter 3 we are introduced to another group called the Herodians, which was a purely political group.
The Pharisees understood that devout worship of God required people to religiously keep all of the Mosaic Law and the Traditions of the Elders. So when Jesus entered the house of one who was not a devout Jew, it meant to the Pharisees that he was now tainted by their sinfulness, and thus, his personal righteousness was rendered unclean. This interesting theological problem had been a source of concern throughout the centuries. Put simply: As a righteous person, am I rendered unrighteous if I have contact with an unrighteous person? Or, how long can I spend with an unrighteous person before his unrighteousness rubs off onto me? Or, how big a crowd of unrighteous people am I safe to be with before it affects my righteousness?
In the prologue of John’s Gospel, he gives us the outstanding answer: verse 5 “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome it.”
Verse 17 gives us the sense Jesus had of his ministry. He gives a mini parable: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” And then he gives the interpretation of his own parable, “I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners.”
This is an important part of the apostolic training. Jesus showed and taught his early disciples that the target audience for the teaching of the Kingdom was those who knew they were sinners. Jesus knew that self-righteous people (regardless of the basis of their self-righteousness) were unlikely to receive his teaching. People who are content with their life, who have no sense of spiritual need, who ignore God, or worship other man-made gods or philosophies are not going to receive his teaching of the spiritual Kingdom of God. It was true, then, and it continues to be true even to this present day.
Reader 3 Mark 2: 18 – 22 The Question of Fasting
Jesus took a question from the crowd concerning fasting, and he showed how his teaching was not a continuation of the current Jewish teaching but was radically new. Again, he used a simple parable to illustrate this truth: “One can’t patch old clothing with new material or put this season’s wine into a previous season’s skin.” The Kingdom Jesus brought was not just an improvement on the current thinking; rather, it was so new it required a new way of thinking. Later, the Apostle Paul would show it was an entirely new covenant that Jesus introduced. While it stood on the shoulders of the ancient Mosaic Covenant, its implementation was through the blood of Jesus, not through the sacrifices of bulls and goats.
In answer to the question, “Why did his disciples not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist?” Jesus referred the people to the practice of wedding celebrations. There are times for joyful celebrations and there are times for sadness. Jesus forewarned his disciples and the crowd that the current joy they were all experiencing at his ministry of healing and deliverance would not continue. It would be followed by a time of great anguish and disheartenment. Such sadness would be akin to fasting, for they would be filled with fear and be so broken in spirit that all joy would be extinguished.
Reader 4 Mark 2: 23 – 27 The Question of the Sabbath
Mark recorded another occasion in the life of Jesus that was challenged by the Pharisees. It was the Sabbath. The disciples were walking by the grain fields and they picked ripe, raw heads of grain to eat. The eating was not a religious problem. It was the picking of the grain on the Sabbath that was the problem. This action was equated to reaping. And reaping was work that was specifically banned by the law. It was not to be done on the Sabbath.
In his response, Jesus made reference to an Old Testament event in which King David was on the run from King Saul. David and his companions entered the sacred tabernacle and ate the Bread of the Presence or Shewbread. The Shewbread were 12 loaves of bread which were renewed every Sabbath and placed in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle. Only the priests were allowed to eat it.
Here, we have Mark recording Jesus’ words stating the incident with David occurred in the days when Abiathar was High Priest. The only reference to this event is from 1 Samuel 21: 1-6 where it is specifically mentioned it was during the time when Ahimelech was priest. Abiathar was Ahimelech’s son and a priest. He did not become high priest until later. It is also noted neither Matthew nor Luke mention the name Abiathar, at all, in their gospels. There is much written on this apparent error by Jesus, and I’ll leave you to research it if you are interested. For me, it is simply a shorthand generalisation made by Jesus. We have already noted in the opening verses of Chapter 1 that pedantic accuracy by Mark (Peter) was not adhered to when referencing the Old Testament. Abiathar did become a high priest. He was a notable historic figure within Israel’s history. He was alive, perhaps even present, when the incident with David took place. Giving Abiathar his later title is acceptable when referencing him. Finally, this apparent discrepancy does not alter the teaching of Jesus concerning the correct use of the Sabbath.
The concluding teaching by Jesus is powerful and eternally instructive on the proper understanding of the purpose of the Sabbath.
Verse 27 tells us a wonderful truth. People are not a servant of the law, but the law is a servant of the people. When followers of Jesus get this right, it frees them from outward religious observance and puts the focus upon their use of the one day in seven. It is a gracious provision by God. People do not have to work continuously; they will have sufficient for life if they work only six days, resting on the seventh. This is a Kingdom truth.
Verse 28 tells us more of the identity of Jesus. He is not bound by the Sabbath or Law because he is “the boss” of the Sabbath. In his divine role as the Son of Man, he is not limited by this human provision for ceasing from work. He is free to work and rest and worship. Yet because he was human he did rest frequently, just not as required by the Mosaic Law. This develops further the identity of Jesus as the one who would offer the perfect atonement for sin.