Setting the Record Straight

Mark 2:23-28

"Thieves!!!"

More apt would be “Law-breakers!!!”  That’s what the legalistic Pharisees were calling the disciples, as well as putting Jesus in the line of fire as teacher for their behavior.

For what? Picking grain as they walked along the road? That was it?

If we're going to the moral part of the law, they weren't stealing. Leviticus 19:9,10 and Deuteronomy 23:25 state as much. "Farmers were to leave the edges of their fields unharvested so that some of their crops could be picked by travelers and by the poor." [i]

So what was the issue -- beyond the mere act of picking grain?

Key phrase and real point of contention -- "on the Sabbath" -- which elevated the accusation.

According to the Oral Torah, "39 categories of m'lakhah (work) are prohibited on Shabbat, while the Tabernacle was being built. One of those was reaping, another threshing. ...Rubbing the heads of grain together in their hands would be defined as threshing. This is the content of the accusation the P'rushim (the Pharisees) were making against them and by implication against Yeshua (Jesus)." [ii]

39 categories of work on the Sabbath was forbidden, including the preparation of a meal which crazy enough was what Jesus and his disciples did.

Silly law? Why would there be a law like this in the first place? 

To prevent farmers from becoming greedy, overworking their laborers and ignoring God on the Sabbath. Seems prudent, to a point -- past the "black and white" letter of the law -- to which Jesus would address.

Jesus shares an example of David and his companions being hungry -- 1 Samuel 21:1-6.

DID YOU KNOW?

The story of David in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 doesn't exactly match what was written by Mark. In 1 Samuel, Ahimelech was the priest who gave the bread to David. "Abiathar [in Mark 2:26] was Ahimelech's son, who later was the High-Priest during David's reign. Since Ahimelech died shortly after this incident, it's likely Mark simply added this designation to identify the well-known companion of David who later became the High-Priest, along with Zadok." [iii]

So what was going on? According to Exodus 25:30, consecrated (sacred) bread was to be set before God in the Tabernacle -- the Holy Place. "Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all time." (Exodus 25:30, NIV) More explanation is provided in Leviticus 24:5-9.

Every Sabbath, 12 baked loaves (representing the 12 tribes of Israel) were placed on the table in the Holy Place. When this act was done, the priests would in turn take and eat the old loaves. [iv]

Jesus uses this example of David and the High-Priest to make his point -- and sums it up in verse 27, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath exists to make humankind’s life better. In essence, "the showbread [the consecrated bread] was never more sacred as when it was used to feed a starving man. [v]

In verse 28, Jesus concludes with "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Whoa. No he didn't! Did he?

If we go with this statement "as is," then Jesus could reject what the Pharisees were saying about the Sabbath. Why "as is"? For some, that's what Jesus said. He had the authority as the Messiah to revoke the rules of Sabbath rest. From the perspective of Jewish scholars though, it's important to consider what they believe regarding the text.

"It may be that Yeshua's comment, that the Son of Man is Lord of Shabbat, does not refer to himself but to everyone, since Hebrew ben-adam (literally, son of man) can mean simply man, person, with no Messianic overtone. People control Shabbat and not the other way around." [vi]

Either way, not to diminish the Messianic interpretation, the day of rest -- the Sabbath -- was to be looked upon as a blessing and not a burden. Regardless, those in opposition to Jesus could not be pleased or happy. He had called them out.

NEXT…

Going to the extreme; channeling anger constructively; the plot thickens

---

[i] Life Application Bible, NIV, pp. 1730-1731

[ii] Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern, pp. 44-45

[iii] The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1463

[iv] Life Application Bible, NIV, p. 1732

[v] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay, p. 60

[vi] Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern, p. 89

The Way It Has Always Been Done

 In response to those who are unable to attend my weekly Bible study on the Gospel According to MARK (Sunday’s at 10 am at Hollywood United Methodist Church), I share my thoughts and notes from previous sessions. While I’m not a scholar, I am an enthusiast. Enjoy!

Mark 2:18-22

Rumor had it... the disciples of John the Baptist weren't backing Jesus of Nazareth -- even though the man who they followed (before he ended up in prison) stated, "After me will come one more powerful than I,... I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." [i] Maybe Jesus heard the voice come from heaven once he was baptized in the river Jordan; nevertheless, that heavenly voice was not heard by the disciples of the Baptist's.

Rumor became reality when it was confirmed in verse 18. Yet why would anyone be surprised by this -- the mixing of the followers of John with Pharisees? As previously mentioned in the first blog post on MARK, John the Baptist was a life-long Nazirite (Numbers 6:2-13). He was dedicated by separation. Makes sense his followers would be as well. And another name for the Pharisees was... "separated ones." The two parties definitely had some things in common, and that included fasting.

Why weren't the disciples of Jesus fasting, too? Bad disciples!

Let's hold back on the judgment though. While some certainly took up this discipline, "Fasting was not a general practice for Jews except at Yom Kippur [the Day of Atonement when the nation confessed and was forgiven its sin], during mourning, and as a preparation for urgent supplications to God." [ii] Fasting often was not standard practice or protocol.

Was there an issue with the Pharisees fasting often? Carlton (at the Sunday study) spoke up regarding the problem of showing off, calling attention to one's self. The problem? If you're only fasting to impress others, if you're fasting strictly as a ritual, then it has no honest value. The true purpose of fasting is being twisted. That was happening with the Pharisees who would whiten their faces and wear disheveled garments on their fast days so no one could miss them. [iii] "See how good we are?!?"

Jesus replies to the question of fasting by using the image of a bridegroom with his guests. Why though? How would this relate?

Of the numerous rabbinic rulings, there was one which stated, "All in attendance of the bridegroom are relieved of all religious observances which would lessen their joy." [iv] So in regard to the religious observance of fasting, the wedding guests were exempt. Because it would lessen their joy, joy, joy!

Jesus could informatively use this rabbinic ruling (and for the purpose of clarity) in his telling of the bridegroom and his guests. At the same time, as Gene shared with the study group, "Jesus was calling himself the bridegroom, and while he was here, it was a time of celebration." That is, until the bridegroom will be taken away, which alludes to Jesus' own death. Then there is mourning; there is fasting.

Then Jesus talks about garments and wineskins -- like he's whipping out the Old Farmer's Almanac. What's up with that?!

If "new" is forced upon "old", problems will arise. How many times have we witnessed that? In this instance, beyond the good advice which might have been lost on the listener, "the Pharisees had become rigid like old wineskins. They couldn't accept faith in Jesus that wouldn't be contained or limited by man-made ideas of rules." [v]

If one forced the new wine of Messianic faith into old wineskins of traditional Judaism, the faith would be lost. Judaism would be ruined. But if the old forms became freshly prepared and reconditioned, accommodating trust in Jesus,.... [vi] As Norma said to the study group, "Jesus wasn't telling them to get rid of the old. But he was telling them to savor the new."

For consideration,...

* What happens when we become fixed and set in our ways? Are we "alive"? Truly alive?

* In what ways have each of us been approached with something "new" and we've dismissed it without hesitation and without thought regardless of its intrinsic value in our lives?

* If new truth is presented, what's the worst that would happen if it is sincerely contemplated? What's the best?

In its simplest form, I believe what Jesus was saying was this... "With everything you've learned up to this point, keep your heart open to the possibilities of something new and exciting, drawing you closer to God in ways you can't imagine." Scary, beautiful words to consider, yet truly life-changing.

---

[i] Mark 1:7,8 -- NIV

[ii] The Jewish Annotated New Testament, pp. 64-65

[iii] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay, p. 53

[iv] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay, p. 53

[v] Life Application Bible, NIV, p. 1730

[vi] The Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern, p. 37

Infectious,... Table for One

In response to those who are unable to attend my weekly Bible study on the Gospel According to MARK (Sunday’s at 10 am at Hollywood United Methodist Church), I share my thoughts and notes from previous sessions. While I’m not a scholar, I am an enthusiast. Enjoy!

Mark 2:13-17

Question – What defines “church”? Is it a building? Is it the people gathered together? Does the common denominator include a preacher?

From Matthew 18:20 (NIV), it is written, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” So,… is that “church”?

This isn’t a trick question. I’m not trying to stump anyone. I’m just asking. Well,… it also relates to verse 13 where Jesus now has chosen (or has been forced) to teach by the lakeside – not using the synagogue. Someone questioned, “Was this because he was no longer welcomed?” That’s certainly a possibility, since his teaching was causing a stir among some.

When defining “church” was posed to the study group, they responded with, “One of my best church experiences as a youth was at UMYF camp out in the woods,” “A few years ago, I loved going to the Hollywood Bowl sunrise service on Easter (which is an outdoor amphitheater), “Didn't we experience church when we worshipped at the beach,?"…. How about for you? For the group, “church” can be anywhere, with anyone, yet there has to be a spiritual component.

For Jesus, to teach in the open air, he certainly reached more people by doing so. As to whether it was common practice during this time, “As rabbis walked the roads from one place to another, or as they strolled in the open air, their disciples grouped themselves around them and walked with them and listened as they talked.” [i]

After Jesus finished teaching, his path crossed Levi’s (known as Matthew), a tax collector, and he said to him, “Follow me.” “And Levi got up and followed him.” [ii]

Really? It went down like that? Jesus just saw a tax collector, told him to follow him, and without hesitation the dude obeyed? Really?

This is where there’s more to the scene, to the story, than is written. There’s more to the Gospel than what some will claim to be the gospel truth.

Think about it…

·         Jesus had a plan in place. Fact but not point-blanked stated.

·         Jesus knew what he was doing when he approached Matthew. Fact but again not in the verse(s).

·         By bringing a tax collector into his group of disciples, a greater number of people would be impacted and more lives would change. Fact.

·         A tax collector could be a positive financial support for the movement led by Jesus. Fact but you have to consider this beyond the surface.

·         Matthew bought Jesus’ two word pitch – hook, line and sinker. My opinion is this is not fact. At least how it went down in the scripture.

As Gene Murray stated, tax collectors had to have hardened hearts. In order to be in the business they were conducting, to line their own pockets and build their personal treasuries, a publican had to be hard-nosed. If you owed the tax, you paid the tax. If the taxman didn’t collect the fee, there would be a harsh penalty applied against him, because the higher up’s such as Herod Antipas (ruler of Galilee) at the time would want every red cent due them.

Why would you give up a position that made you one of the wealthiest people around? The 1%?

To be in the 1% as a tax collector, there was definitely a personal cost of doing business – being cast outside of religious and social circles. It wasn’t pretty being the person no one else wanted to be with. That had to be difficult. Plus they were considered to be in the same category as sinners. By whom? Specific to this text, it was the Pharisees who considered them as such.

Who And What – The Pharisees

The Pharisees were a legalistic sect comprised of about 6,000 men known for their strict devotion to the ceremonial law. Their goal “was to renew and extend the observance of Jewish practice in society.” [iii] These “separated ones” as law-keepers must not fellowship with those who didn’t observe all the rules and regulations. “Above all, he must not accept hospitality from or give hospitality to such a person.” [iv]

When Jesus chose to break bread at Matthew’s home with many tax collectors (who had to have been invited by Matthew – not stated in the verses) and other sinners, a line had been crossed. For the Pharisees, sinners referred “to prostitutes, thieves and others of low reputation whose sins were blatant and obvious – who had no respect for the Mosaic law or rabbinic traditions.” [v]

Looking at it in a different way, these sinners could have broken a moral law like adultery or murder yet be in this same classification with someone who broke the scribal law such as a man who didn’t wash his hands the required number of times and in the required way before eating. [vi] They were lump-summed as “sinners.”

What Jesus did, by fellowshipping with these outcasts, he was allowing for a safe place in which there could be healing and reconciliation.

As for verse 17, why did Jesus use the word “physician” in what he had to say? Was it by happy accident? Or was he also focusing on the fear and hypocrisy of those who might be infected by sin (by associating with the “unclean”)?

There is much to consider beyond these words in the Bible. Yet I conclude this post with Matthew, who made a huge sacrifice to follow Jesus. He gave up everything. How’s that? Was it any greater than the four fisher of men -- James, John, Andrew and Peter?

By leaving his post, by choosing to join Jesus’ band of disciples, Matthew would be out of a job forever – as a tax collector. There was no turning back -- unlike the fisherman who could return to the primary industry in Capernaum (fishing). That’s something to think about. And to be grateful for. 

By following Jesus, Matthew (who was despised by many as a publican, who had a hardened heart that was broken) became an important part of the Christian movement, as a writer of one of the Gospels (and ultimately loved and respected). Talk about stepping out in faith!  Risk… Reward.

NEXT…

To fast or not to fast; to be fixed or to be pliable

---

[i] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay – p. 45

[ii] Mark 2:14b, NIV

[iii] The Jewish Annotated New Testament – p. 64

[iv] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay – p. 50

[v] Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern – p. 36

[vi] The Gospel of Mark, Barclay – p. 50