The Gospel of Mark records an account where
Jewish religious leaders objected to Christ's looseness towards their
institutional Sabbath regulations. He used the opportunity to demonstrate that
the Messiah is "Lord" even over the Sabbath day.
Genesis speaks of God ceasing from his
creative activities on the seventh day but the formal establishment of the
Sabbath as a regulated day was not until the Mosaic Law.
The disciples were walking on the
Sabbath. It was forbidden to journey on the Sabbath more than a short
distance, the so-called “Sabbath day’s journey.” How far the disciples
walked is not stated. By the time of Jesus, the traditional regulation
specified travel of no more than 1,999 paces on the Sabbath, approximately
eight hundred meters.
The disciples were plucking ears of grain and
rubbing them in their hands to separate the grain from the chaff. This was
considered “reaping and winnowing” in the eyes of the Pharisees, work
activities prohibited on the Sabbath.
(Mark
2:23-3:6) - “And it came to pass, that he on the Sabbath was passing
through the cornfields, and his disciples began to be going forward, plucking
the ears of corn. And the Pharisees were saying—See! why are they doing, on the
Sabbath, what is not allowed? And he saith unto them—Have ye never read what David
did when he had need and hungered,—he and they who were with him: how he
entered into the house of God, while Abiathar was High-priest, and the
presence-bread did eat,—which it is not allowed to eat, save unto the
priests,—and gave unto them also who were with him? And he was saying unto
them—The Sabbath for man was made, and not man for the Sabbath: So that the Son
of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. And he entered again into a synagogue, and
there-was there a man having his hand withered and they were narrowly watching
him, whether, on the Sabbath, he would cure him, that they might accuse him.
And he saith unto the man who hath his hand withered, Arise into the midst! and
saith unto them—Is it allowed, on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil? To save
life or to slay? but they remained silent. And, looking round upon them with
anger, being at the same time grieved on account of the hardening of their
heart, he saith unto the man—Stretch forth thy hand! and he stretched it forth,
and his hand, was restored. And the Pharisees, going out straightway with the
Herodians; were giving counsel against him, that they should destroy him” [source:
The Emphasized Bible]
It was permissible for anyone passing through
a grain field to pick grain by hand for immediate personal consumption (Deuteronomy
23:25). The Pharisees objected not to a violation of property rights or
theft, but because the disciples were doing this on the Sabbath.
In the Torah, harvesting by
sickle was forbidden on the Sabbath. By Christ’s time, rigorist groups like as
the Pharisees had evolved the Law’s Sabbath regulations into an extensive and
minute set of rules. Picking a few ears of grain by hand became defined as
“reaping.”
Jesus responds with a counter-question from
the life of David (1 Samuel 21:1-6). David and his men were living an outlaw existence. One
day, they were famished. The story referred to the “show-bread” or the “bread
of the presence,” twelve loaves of sanctified bread placed before the
“presence” of the Lord in the Tabernacle each week on the Sabbath day. Only
priests could eat this bread lawfully.
The circumstances from David’s story were not
precisely parallel to those of Jesus and his disciples. The disciples were not
in a state of physical distress. Jesus did not cite David’s violation of Torah regulation
as an excuse but as a precedent. Since Jesus was the Greater David and the true
King of Israel, if that which is holy (the show-bread) was set aside for David,
how much more appropriate was it to set aside that which is holy for the
Greater David?
Jesus’ statement, “the Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” was quite appropriate. In their zeal
to obey the law, some had forgotten the purpose of the Law: to do good to
mankind. As a day of rest and worship, God did not intend that a man or woman
be deprived of the necessities of life. The Sabbath was for mankind’s
well-being. Even slaves and animals were allowed rest on the Sabbath. “The
Sabbath was for the sake of man, not man for the sake of the Sabbath.”
Since the Sabbath was made for man’s
benefits, it follows that the “Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath”
because he is the designated representative and ruler of Israel. In the Greek
sentence “Lord” is emphatic. The construction is unusual and designed to
emphasize the point: Jesus’ authority as “Son of Man” and “Lord.” Literally, it
reads: “consequently, Lord is the Son of Man of the Sabbath.”
Matthew adds: “or have you not read in the
Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are
innocent? But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. But
if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would
not have condemned the innocent.”
Sabbath restrictions were not absolute.
Temple priests engaged in “work” on the Sabbath and other feast days to fulfill
their priestly duties. The priests performed their work in the Temple. Jesus,
the Son of Man, was something “greater than the Temple.” If
priests were allowed to violate the Sabbath in the Temple, and Jesus was
greater than the Temple, then how could he be restricted in his work by Sabbath
regulations?
Parallel passages to Mark 3:1-6 are
found in Matthew 12:9-13 and Luke 6:6-11. The
latter passage adds, “but they themselves were filled with rage and
discussed together what they might do to Jesus. And it was at this time that he
went off to the mountain to pray and he spent the whole night in prayer to God.”
The event in the next paragraph took place in
a synagogue. This setting is integral to the story. Certain Jews “were
watching him” while he was in the synagogue. Luke identifies them as “Scribes
and Pharisees.”
The Greek verb for “accuse” is a legal
term for bringing a charge against someone in a court of law. Note the irony:
they denied Jesus the right to perform good deeds on the Sabbath while they
conspired on the same Sabbath to commit evil.
When Jesus asked, “is it lawful on the
Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill,” a link is
made with the preceding story by his declaration, “the Sabbath was made for
the sake of man.” Like the Sabbath, the Law of Moses was intended to bring
good to humanity, not evil.
The first part of the question refers to what
Jesus intended to do for the man with the withered hand; good, not evil. Not to
restore his hand would be tantamount to doing evil. The second half of the question
(“to save life or to kill”) refers to what his opponents were plotting:
to destroy Jesus.
Healing on the Sabbath was forbidden but by
this time there was an accepted exception: it was permissible to heal if life
was at stake. In this case, the man’s life was not at risk; he would come to no
harm if Jesus waited until evening to restore his hand. But Jesus refused to
draw a narrow distinction between saving lives and restoring life to wholeness.
To delay healing for even a few hours was to deny the Law’s intent.
A deformed person was not allowed to enter
the Temple and, thus, could not be a full member of God’s covenant community (Leviticus
21:16). The task of restoring this man to the covenant people was paramount
and not to be delayed.
Christ’s actions answer his question: not
only is it permissible to heal and do good on the Sabbath, but it is also right
to do so. The narrow attitude of his opponents leads to the destruction of life.
“They kept silent.”
Perhaps Jesus paused for some moments as their silence persisted. It states
that they “hardened their hearts.” In this society, the heart was
believed to be the seat of the intellect. This statement points to a defect in
their basic thought process, not to momentary emotions.
Mark does not state that the withered hand
was “healed” or “cleansed,” but instead “restored.” This points to his
restoration as a full member of the people of Israel, one entitled to enter the
Temple and, otherwise, to participate in the nation’s worship life.
The word used for Christ’s “anger” is orgé,
a noun used for the “wrath” of God. This is the only place in any of the four
gospels where this word is applied to Jesus. Perhaps it highlights the kind of thing
that would cause Jesus to become indignant. Verse 1 provides a clue as to his
anger: “and he entered again into the synagogue.” This is the same
synagogue where Jesus earlier delivered a man from a demon (Mark 1:21).
Some of his audience already had heard his teaching and witnessed his healings.
But their hearts remained hardened to what God was doing in their midst.
Mark clarifies who the opponents were:
Pharisees. He also introduces a new group, the Herodians, a group mentioned
once more in Mark 12:13. Herodians were Jewish partisans that
supported Herod Antipas. The Pharisees were political enemies of Herod and
unlikely allies of the Herodians. And the Pharisees were devout adherents of
the Law of Moses, unlike the Herodians. They viewed the Herodians as
compromisers and collaborators with an apostate regime. That the two groups
allied to destroy Jesus demonstrates just how much they hated him.
This story is a major turning point in
Christ’s ministry in the gospel of Mark. The reaction of his opponents to this
healing on the Sabbath transformed them from critics to conspirators in a plot
to destroy Jesus (cp. Mark 11:18; 15:1).
Mark does not give precise reasons why the
Pharisees and Herodians began at this time to plot Christ’s death. However,
this and the preceding story provide several clues:
1.
Sabbath violation.
2.
Fraternizing with sinners.
3.
Disregarding customs and regulations from
oral traditions.
4.
The presumption of Jesus of the authority to
forgive sins.
Later,
Jesus will be accused of casting out demons by Satan, a charge he will
categorize as “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” an unpardonable sin.
The present hardening of hearts and plots to destroy him anticipate what Jesus
means by “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
No comments:
Post a Comment