Do All in the Name of the Lord

Do All in the Name of the Lord is a series of essays honoring Heritage Christian University's longtime Director of Financial Aid Mechelle Thompson. Chapters include a brief history of Heritage Christian University (formerly International Bible College); calls to kindness, wisdom, spiritual leadership, Christian identity, and maturity in

• Language: English
• Publisher: Heritage Christian University
• Release date: Mar 9, 2024
• ISBN: 9781956811506

Book preview

Mark 2:23–28

JESUS, THE SABBATH, AND THE LAW

COY D. ROPER

In Mark 2:23–28 Jesus’s disciples are accused of breaking the Law of Moses by plucking grain on the Sabbath. ¹ Since Jesus’s relationship to the Sabbath in particular and to the Law of Moses in general is one emphasis in this passage, it is possible that Mark 2:23–28 was intended to answer questions about the Law which might have troubled the early church, especially the church which Mark addressed. ² In any case, the pericope suggests three questions concerning Jesus and the Law that need to be answered.

INTRODUCTION

However, before those questions can be addressed, some introductory matters need to be considered.

Text

There is one significant variant in the Markan passage. Some manuscripts omit the Greek words epi Abiathar archiereos which are translated when Abiathar was high priest, and others add a genitive article which makes more acceptable the translation (as in the NIV) in the days of Abiathar the high priest. ³ It is thought that the variants arose from the historical problem the text presents—namely, that Ahimelech, not Abiathar (Ahimelech’s son), was the high priest who gave David the bread. ⁴ If the text as it is found is correct, there are several possible ways to explain the apparent contradiction between Jesus (or Mark) and 1 Samuel. ⁵ Lane suggests the possibility that the passage since it is similar in form to Mark 12:26, might be read in the passage about Abiathar. ⁶

Composition and Historicity

Various theories have been suggested concerning the formation of the pericope, ⁷ but in this paper, we will assume Mark has recorded an actual occurrence from the life of Jesus ⁸ as well as preserving Jesus’s authentic words.

Author, Date, Audience

We will also assume that the author is John Mark, a companion of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:5) and the son (in the faith) of Peter (1 Pet 5:13); that, as early tradition indicates, he basically transmitted Peter’s gospel; that he wrote the gospel in the late 50s or early 60s; and that it was intended for a congregation or group of congregations consisting largely of Gentile Christians (perhaps in Rome). ⁹

Themes, Purpose

The major themes of Mark are Christology (emphasizing Christ’s authority) in the first half of the book, and Discipleship (emphasizing service) in the second half. ¹⁰ Various suggestions have been made as to the purpose of the book, but the best possibilities relate to the goal of building up the church by teaching and encouraging Christians. ¹¹

How does Mark 2:23–28 contribute to the gospel’s overall themes and purpose? The passage is the fourth of five conflict passages found between Mark 2:1 and Mark 3:6:

2:1–12—Jesus accused of blasphemy because He forgave sins.

2:13–17—Jesus accused of eating with tax collectors and sinners.

2:18–22—Jesus asked why His disciples did not fast.

2:23–28—Jesus asked why His disciples broke the Sabbath law.

3:1–6—Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath, knowing that the Pharisees disapprove.

These conflicts culminate with the Pharisees conspiring with the Herodians to destroy Jesus (3:6). Mark has obviously brought several different conflict stories together ¹² to set the course for the gospel he has written: This is a book which is about the Jesus who was crucified. ¹³ Emphasizing Jesus’s death would encourage Mark’s audience to continue to be faithful, no matter what, or, in other words, to take up their cross and follow [Jesus] (Mark 8:34).

In addition, these occurrences all speak of Jesus’s relationship to the Law, emphasizing that in Jesus something new and different (new wine in new wineskins, Mark 2:21–22) has come: one who can forgive sins (which was unheard of under the Law), one who eats with sinners (disregarding Pharisaic tradition), one whose disciples do not fast (unlike those who follow the Law and the traditions), and one who uses the Sabbath differently. The section reaches its climax when the Pharisees determine to seek Jesus’s death—a decision brought about by Jesus’s refusal to accept their interpretation of the Law. Thus, the passage may have a didactic purpose as well: to teach about Jesus’s attitude towards the Law.

QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS AND THE LAW

What does the passage teach about Jesus and the Law? The answer lies in three questions related to the text.

Mark 2:23–24—Did Either Jesus or His Disciples Break the Law?

Jesus and His disciples were going through a grain field on the Sabbath; the disciples began to pluck heads of grain (Matthew says that they ate the grain [Matt 12:1], and Luke adds that they rubbed them in their hands, and ate them [Luke 6:1]); and the Pharisees accused them of doing what was not lawful on the Sabbath (2:23–24). They did not accuse Jesus of breaking the law; it seems likely that if they could have done so, they would have. ¹⁴ Still, since the accused were His disciples, Jesus was held accountable for their actions. ¹⁵

What law did they break? The Old Testament explicitly allowed for those passing through a field to gather and eat from the fruit of the field (see Deut 23:25). They could not, therefore, be accused of stealing. ¹⁶

Rather, the Pharisees accused the disciples of breaking the law against working on the Sabbath (Exod 20:8-11), in particular the law that required keeping the Sabbath even during harvest times (Exod 34:21). The Jews had elaborated the Sabbath law to include thirty-nine categories of work which could not be done; among those categories was reaping. ¹⁷ The law which the Pharisees accused the disciples of breaking consisted of their traditions.

But was this really the equivalent of breaking the Law of Moses? ¹⁸ Jesus Himself distinguished between the Pharisees’ traditions and Moses’s law. When the disciples were accused of eating with unwashed hands, Jesus replied: You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition (Mark 7:8; see also Matt 15:3–6). The commandment of God here is the command to honor your father and your mother (Mark 7:10), one of the Ten Commandments. Thus, Jesus demonstrated the utmost respect for the Law of Moses, but little respect for the traditions of the elders. ¹⁹

It seems clear, then, that Jesus did not at this time break the Law of Moses, ²⁰ nor did His disciples. ²¹ The assertion that Jesus’s failure to deny His opponents’ accusation means that He accepted it ²² is not valid, since, according to Matthew, Jesus makes it clear that the disciples were guiltless (Matt 12:8). If they were guiltless, they had not broken the Sabbath.

One further point needs to be made: there is a theological problem if Jesus did indeed break the Law of Moses. Jesus was a Jew who lived under the Law (Gal 4:4); as a Jew, He had the responsibility to obey the Law (Exod 19:5). If He failed to obey it, then He sinned (Jas 2:10). However, the New Testament teaches, and followers of Christ believe, that Jesus did not sin. ²³ Therefore, Jesus never broke God’’s law. To say that on this occasion He broke the law requires a revision of New Testament theology or some kind of explanation to show how Jesus could break the law and still be sinless.

Mark 2:25–27—Did Jesus Approve of the Breaking of the Law?

Jesus replies to the Pharisees’ accusation by citing David’s eating of the bread of the Presence, which, He said, was not lawful for any but the priests to eat (2:26). Then He adds the saying, The Sabbath was made for [man], not [man] for the Sabbath. In using David’s example, He seems to endorse what He Himself calls unlawful.

The law David broke is found in Leviticus 24:8–9, which specifies that the priests are to eat the loaves in a holy place. On the occasion Jesus cited (as recorded in 1 Sam 21:1–6), David asked for bread for himself and his men. The priest Ahimelech said that he had none except for the holy bread, which David could have, provided the young men have kept themselves from women. When David said they had, the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence. Although both Matthew and Luke say that David entered the house of God, Jesus calls attention only to the eating of the bread. ²⁴

The usual (but not universal) interpretation of Mark 2:25–26 is that Jesus uses David’s precedent to prove that meeting human needs is more important than observing sabbath details. ²⁵ Just as David and his companions were hungry and in need of food, Jesus’s disciples were hungry (a fact which is specified by Matthew). To rebuke them for taking sustenance was altogether out of place, especially since the Sabbath was made for [man], and not [man] for the Sabbath. The Sabbath law was given as a blessing for humanity; when it was used to keep the poor from eating, then its purpose was perverted. A similar argument is used by Jesus when He asks the Pharisees in the next chapter: Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do harm, to save life or to kill? (Mark 3:4) The implied argument is that since the Sabbath is intended to be a blessing to man, it is always appropriate to do good on the Sabbath.

Does this mean that Jesus endorsed the breaking of the Law of Moses? Not necessarily. There are two ways to argue that, although Jesus appears to endorse David’s breaking of the law, in reality, He did not.

A higher law. It is possible to see in this incident Jesus’s endorsement of the principle that some Old Testament laws are more important than others, and