(Gospel of Mark 2:23 - 3:13)
On the Sabbath Jesus happened to be passing through a field of grain. As his disciples walked along with him, they began to pick some of the heads of grain.
The Pharisees challenged him. “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
Jesus replied to them, "Haven't you ever read what King David did when he and his companions were hungry and needy? In the days of Abiathar, high priest, he entered the Tabernacle and ate the sacred showbread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat. He even gave some to the companions who were with him.”
He also said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is master of the Sabbath as well.”
On another occasion Jesus entered the synagogue and noticed a man there with a withered hand. Those who were looking for a pretext to bring a charge against him watched Jesus closely to see if he would heal the man on the Sabbath.
Jesus told the man with the withered hand, "Come and stand up in front of us all.” He asked the people, "What is lawful on the Sabbath, to do good, or to do evil, to save a life, or to take one?" But the congregation was silent.
Jesus glared at them in anger, appalled by the hardness of their hearts. Then he said to the man, "Hold out your hand." He held out his hand, and, lo, it was restored!
As soon as the Pharisees left the synagogue, they conferred with those supporters of Herod Antipas who were opposed to Jesus and conspired with them how they might destroy Jesus.
Jesus retreated with his disciples to the Sea of Galilee. A large crowd followed him, people not only from Galilee, but from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, the trans-Jordan, and the area around Tyre and Sidon. Having heard of the great things he was doing, vast numbers of people were coming to see him. Concerned that the crowds might crush him, Jesus ordered his disciples to make ready a boat. He had healed so many on that day that those who were diseased surged forward through the crowd that they might touch him. Whenever those possessed by unholy spirits recognized him, they would prostrate themselves before him and exclaim, "You are the Son of God!" But Jesus sternly commanded them not to reveal his identity.
Notes
1. By picking heads of grain as they passed through the fields, the disciples were engaged in a forbidden activity, harvesting on the Sabbath, so judged the knit-picking Pharisees. Presumably the disciples were picking the heads of grain to eat the kernels. Gee, most folks wait until the kernels are made into flour or bread! We are referring to wheat here, not to what we call corn, which is maize, a strictly New World cereal that would have been unknown to those living in the ancient Middle East. (The word corn was traditionally used to refer to any grain or cereal crop.) Was Jesus so poor at providing for his disciples that they must scavenge for food? This behavior, though, was sanctioned by Deuteronomy. We must ask, though, how the Pharisees knew of this. Were the Pharisees, who seem to dog Jesus' footsteps, really trailing the disciples through the grain field, spying on them and scrutinizing their every move? The Pharisees do give the impression that they will go to any length to try to catch Jesus in a blasphemy or in some violation of religious law, however minor or harmless in order to find an excuse for getting rid of him, a troublemaker and a threat to their authority. Yet, this seems excessively petty -- which is perhaps the very reason this trivial incident was included by the author, to discredit the good sense of the Pharisees who opposed Jesus.
2. Jesus' response to the Pharisees' charge concerning the disciples' questionable conduct, plucking heads of grain on a Sabbath, is somewhat evasive. He compares it to an act of David and his hungry companions when they ate food meant for the priests. The circumstances are not really comparable at all. David was a future king in flight, not a follower of an evangelist. David secured the approval of the priests for what he did. And David and his companions were in distress and genuinely hungry. Were the disciples really that hungry? Did that compel their indiscreet plucking? And if David had acted improperly, how does that excuse the actions of Jesus' disciples? One instance of wrong behavior is not justified by citing another instance of wrong behavior, especially when the latter act is motivated by extenuating circumstances and the former is not. Jesus is very much like a little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He excuses himself by claiming his older brother filched an extra brownie the week before. He never directly addresses the morality of his own conduct, or rather that of his disciples, he only diverts attention from it by pointing to the conduct of another. This behavior, this response to an accusation, this debating tactic, is as puerile as it common. One would think it beneath someone who claims to be the Son of God.
3. The incident concerning David is mentioned in Samuel. David, feeing from Saul, was alone when he asked the Jehovan priests to feed him with the sacred showbread. But he did bring back 5 loaves for his companions. The high priest at that time was actually Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, who later succeeded his father when he was murdered by Saul. The presumed mistake is explained away variously by biblical commentators -- Abimelech was also called Abiathar or the phrase is not “in the days when Abiathar was high priest,” but “in the days of Abiathar, the high priest,” not referring to the time when he held the office, but merely when he was active. Reasoning that neither Jesus nor the author of Mark would make so egregious an error, I have accepted the latter rendering and assumed meaning.
4. Jesus, though, presents another alibi for his disciples' conduct. But in saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not vice versa, Jesus is arguably throwing out the whole concept of strict Sabbath observance. One might interpret his remarks as sanctioning any Sabbath violation that serves not only necessity, but practicality and convenience. Moreover, he, as the Son of Man, claims the right to make of the Sabbath whatever he wishes. By advocating that the Sabbath serves the purposes of man (and not God?), Jesus seems to say that he is free to make any rules about it he deems fit and not be bound by the laws concerning it set down in the Mosaic texts. This is surely a repudiation of Judaism, at least traditional Judaism. Indeed the Pharisees thought so and were so outraged by it that they resolved to kill Jesus. (Forgetting, of course, the commandment against murder.)
5. That Jesus chooses to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath in the synagogue is intentionally provocative. The man was not suffering and in need of immediate succor. Jesus could have seen the man the next day and healed him in the privacy of his home. He didn't need to do it on the Sabbath. He didn't need to do it in front of a congregation that might be offended by healing on the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus chose to make the man the object of a spectacle and a means of showing up the congregation -- who were probably less hard-hearted than sheep-like, believing what they were told by the Pharisees.
6. The Pharisees conferred with supporters of Herod Antipas who were opposed to Jesus: in other words, they were seeking the approval of the political establishment and plotting with it to destroy Jesus. Jesus, although he hasn't done or said a great deal at this point in the narrative, has already acquired national, if not international notoriety. A preacher, a healer of populist appeal, he is a threat to the powers that be. The political and religious establishments, no doubt oft at odds, thus form an alliance against Jesus.
7. Jesus is constantly running into people possessed by unholy, or impure spirits. There seems to have been an epidemic at that time of what we would term demonic possession. While there is certainly compelling, contemporary evidence that demonic possession does exist, it must be regarded as rare. Here, it is common. The spirits or demons immediately recognize Jesus and, for whatever reason, wish to expose him as the Son of God. Jesus, at this point, doesn't wish to reveal his true identity. He wants to stay in the closet, so he silences the spirits, who apparently obey his commands and acknowledge his mastery over them. He does not on this occasion exorcise the spirits. Jesus, after healing so many, is now more intent upon getting away from the crowd that want a piece of him.
8. Sidon and Tyre were major cities of Phoenicia, to the north of Galilee. Idumea was the Roman name for Edom or the Negev, south of Judea.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Questions About Fasting
(Gospel of Mark 2:18 - 2:22)
When the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, some people came up to Jesus and asked him, "Why is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, and your disciples are not?"
Jesus answered, "Can the wedding party fast when the groom is still celebrating with them. Of course not, so long as the groom is still among them. But the time will come when he will be taken from them. Then they will fast.
"No one sews a patch of new cloth on an old garment. For the patch would shrink and the new material would pull away from the old, making the tear worse. Nor does anyone put new wine in old wineskins, for the wine would burst the skins and so both the wine and the wineskins would be lost. New wine demands new wineskins."
Notes
1. The Pharisees and the disciples of John were known to have regularly fasted two days a week, but this was not something demanded by religious law. In his reply, Jesus suggests that whatever the merits of the practice, it is superseded by his presence: he is more important than any possible cause for fasting. It is interesting what Jesus does not say in response, e.g., "I see no purpose in my disciples fasting. But if John's disciples or those of the Pharisees wish to do so, that's fine." In the answer Jesus gives, he asserts his independence of not only the Pharisees, but of the Baptist's followers.
2. As he is wont, Jesus, when he is not dodging the queries addressed to him, uses a inquiry to make an unrelated point. Here, the analogy of patching an old garment with new, unshrunk material and putting new wine into old wineskins would seem to have nothing to do with whether his disciples should fast or not. Several interpretations of the analogies suggest themselves. One presumes, though, he is not dispensing practical advise on the mending of one's wardrobe or the storage of alcoholic beverages. It is most likely the analogies refer to himself and his message. He is the new piece of material, he is the new wine. He cannot be contained within the current religious establishment; his message cannot be grafted upon the Pharisaical teachings of the time. He is bringing something new into the world, something that will not fit into old parameters. One might even surmise that Jesus is suggesting his followers found a new religion and discard Judaism, an old wineskin.
3. Woolen garments tend to shrink a great deal when washed. A new piece of woolen, if sewn onto an old, already well-shrunk garment would shrink upon washing. The stitches of the patch would likely pull apart, enlarging the rip or hole in the old garment.
4. New wine is wine that has not yet thoroughly fermented. The fermenting process would put a strain upon wineskins that are old and brittle, perhaps rupturing them. Therefore, it would be foolish to put new wine into old wineskins.
When the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, some people came up to Jesus and asked him, "Why is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, and your disciples are not?"
Jesus answered, "Can the wedding party fast when the groom is still celebrating with them. Of course not, so long as the groom is still among them. But the time will come when he will be taken from them. Then they will fast.
"No one sews a patch of new cloth on an old garment. For the patch would shrink and the new material would pull away from the old, making the tear worse. Nor does anyone put new wine in old wineskins, for the wine would burst the skins and so both the wine and the wineskins would be lost. New wine demands new wineskins."
Notes
1. The Pharisees and the disciples of John were known to have regularly fasted two days a week, but this was not something demanded by religious law. In his reply, Jesus suggests that whatever the merits of the practice, it is superseded by his presence: he is more important than any possible cause for fasting. It is interesting what Jesus does not say in response, e.g., "I see no purpose in my disciples fasting. But if John's disciples or those of the Pharisees wish to do so, that's fine." In the answer Jesus gives, he asserts his independence of not only the Pharisees, but of the Baptist's followers.
2. As he is wont, Jesus, when he is not dodging the queries addressed to him, uses a inquiry to make an unrelated point. Here, the analogy of patching an old garment with new, unshrunk material and putting new wine into old wineskins would seem to have nothing to do with whether his disciples should fast or not. Several interpretations of the analogies suggest themselves. One presumes, though, he is not dispensing practical advise on the mending of one's wardrobe or the storage of alcoholic beverages. It is most likely the analogies refer to himself and his message. He is the new piece of material, he is the new wine. He cannot be contained within the current religious establishment; his message cannot be grafted upon the Pharisaical teachings of the time. He is bringing something new into the world, something that will not fit into old parameters. One might even surmise that Jesus is suggesting his followers found a new religion and discard Judaism, an old wineskin.
3. Woolen garments tend to shrink a great deal when washed. A new piece of woolen, if sewn onto an old, already well-shrunk garment would shrink upon washing. The stitches of the patch would likely pull apart, enlarging the rip or hole in the old garment.
4. New wine is wine that has not yet thoroughly fermented. The fermenting process would put a strain upon wineskins that are old and brittle, perhaps rupturing them. Therefore, it would be foolish to put new wine into old wineskins.
Jesus Dines With Sinners
(Gospel of Mark 2:13 - 2:17)
When Jesus once again went out to the shore of the Sea of Galilee, a large number of people gathered round him, and he began to teach them. As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus manning a custom booth. "Follow me," Jesus bid him, and Levi rose and followed him.
As he dined at Levi's house, there were many tax collectors and sinners who were reclining with Jesus -- and with his disciples as well, for there were many who were following him. When the scribes and Pharisees saw Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners, they asked of his disciples, "Why does he eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?"
When he heard this, Jesus replied to them, "It is not the well who need a doctor, but the sick. I come not to treat those who are righteous, but to cure those who are sinners."
Notes
1. That tax collectors are equated with sinners is revealing of the attitude that Galileans must have had toward their government, not that those who collect taxes are ever popular among citizens of any country at any time. The tax collectors would have worked for the native ruler, Herod Antipas, who administered Galilee as a client state of Rome. (They would not have been employees of Rome, as is asserted by many biblical commentaries.) Although Herod Antipas’ reign, dependent upon the good will of the Roman emperor, was a long one, it is doubtful that he was very popular with his subjects. His servants were probably reviled by the populace. Therefore, the ranks of the tax collectors would have been filled by disreputable and unsavory characters, outcasts, and opportunists. But the tax collectors would have been educated men, literate in Aramaic certainly and perhaps in Greek and Latin. The sinners were probably not those who were immoral in their conduct, but those who were merely religiously unobservant or heretical in their beliefs. This would probably include Hebrews who had become Hellenized or Romanized and had abandoned traditional customs and religious practices.
2. Levi, a tax collector (a publican, or what we would call a public contractor), is, for some reason, chosen by Jesus. He calls to Levi and Levi comes, leaving without explanation his well-paid job to follow an itinerant rabbi. Levi was probably manning a booth, collecting duties on imported goods that were being transported to Galilee from other jurisdictions across the Sea of Galilee. Little is here said of Levi, save that he apparently invites Jesus and his disciples to dinner. He is prosperous enough to give his guests a good feed. (The guests dine Roman style, while reclining on couches before a low table. They do not sit at a table as in da Vinci’s anachronistic depiction, The Last Supper.) Other tax collectors and "sinners" join Jesus and his disciples as guests.
3. Levi is generally thought to be the same person as the Matthew, supposed author of the Gospel of Matthew and later listed in Mark as one of the 12 apostles. (Dual names wee not uncommon at the time, but make for much confusion. It is possible, too, that Levi changed his name to Matthew when he became a disciple of Jesus.) His father Alphaeus is probably not the same Alphaeus who was the father of the Apostle James, although this is matter of some controversy.
4. Jesus, contrary to the point of view of those in the religious establishment, does not feel he needs to be selective in his society. He explains in his own way (it is the sick and not the well that need a doctor) the obligation he feels to consort with sinners in order to convert them. That, one surmises, would have beneath the dignity of the Pharisees, who are quick to find fault in anything that Jesus says or does. The Pharisees see their role in defending and perpetuating religious orthodoxy and are more interested in rooting out heretics than finding converts.
5. The questioning of Jesus' actions and statements by the Pharisees seem like a Socratic dialogue. Were the Pharisees really present, making these challenging inquiries, or are these interchanges literary devices employed by the author to illustrate Jesus' teachings?
When Jesus once again went out to the shore of the Sea of Galilee, a large number of people gathered round him, and he began to teach them. As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus manning a custom booth. "Follow me," Jesus bid him, and Levi rose and followed him.
As he dined at Levi's house, there were many tax collectors and sinners who were reclining with Jesus -- and with his disciples as well, for there were many who were following him. When the scribes and Pharisees saw Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners, they asked of his disciples, "Why does he eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?"
When he heard this, Jesus replied to them, "It is not the well who need a doctor, but the sick. I come not to treat those who are righteous, but to cure those who are sinners."
Notes
1. That tax collectors are equated with sinners is revealing of the attitude that Galileans must have had toward their government, not that those who collect taxes are ever popular among citizens of any country at any time. The tax collectors would have worked for the native ruler, Herod Antipas, who administered Galilee as a client state of Rome. (They would not have been employees of Rome, as is asserted by many biblical commentaries.) Although Herod Antipas’ reign, dependent upon the good will of the Roman emperor, was a long one, it is doubtful that he was very popular with his subjects. His servants were probably reviled by the populace. Therefore, the ranks of the tax collectors would have been filled by disreputable and unsavory characters, outcasts, and opportunists. But the tax collectors would have been educated men, literate in Aramaic certainly and perhaps in Greek and Latin. The sinners were probably not those who were immoral in their conduct, but those who were merely religiously unobservant or heretical in their beliefs. This would probably include Hebrews who had become Hellenized or Romanized and had abandoned traditional customs and religious practices.
2. Levi, a tax collector (a publican, or what we would call a public contractor), is, for some reason, chosen by Jesus. He calls to Levi and Levi comes, leaving without explanation his well-paid job to follow an itinerant rabbi. Levi was probably manning a booth, collecting duties on imported goods that were being transported to Galilee from other jurisdictions across the Sea of Galilee. Little is here said of Levi, save that he apparently invites Jesus and his disciples to dinner. He is prosperous enough to give his guests a good feed. (The guests dine Roman style, while reclining on couches before a low table. They do not sit at a table as in da Vinci’s anachronistic depiction, The Last Supper.) Other tax collectors and "sinners" join Jesus and his disciples as guests.
3. Levi is generally thought to be the same person as the Matthew, supposed author of the Gospel of Matthew and later listed in Mark as one of the 12 apostles. (Dual names wee not uncommon at the time, but make for much confusion. It is possible, too, that Levi changed his name to Matthew when he became a disciple of Jesus.) His father Alphaeus is probably not the same Alphaeus who was the father of the Apostle James, although this is matter of some controversy.
4. Jesus, contrary to the point of view of those in the religious establishment, does not feel he needs to be selective in his society. He explains in his own way (it is the sick and not the well that need a doctor) the obligation he feels to consort with sinners in order to convert them. That, one surmises, would have beneath the dignity of the Pharisees, who are quick to find fault in anything that Jesus says or does. The Pharisees see their role in defending and perpetuating religious orthodoxy and are more interested in rooting out heretics than finding converts.
5. The questioning of Jesus' actions and statements by the Pharisees seem like a Socratic dialogue. Were the Pharisees really present, making these challenging inquiries, or are these interchanges literary devices employed by the author to illustrate Jesus' teachings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)