Mark. Kim Huat TanЧитать онлайн книгу.
serves, then, to highlight Jesus’ uniqueness (v. 12). So an implicit question is raised. It is not about Jesus’ status vis-à-vis the Temple. Instead, it is about his claims and the one God confessed in Israel’s Shema.
Improper Table Fellowship (2:13–17)
From the theme of the Son of Man’s authority to forgive sins, Mark moves on to show how Jesus receives sinners, especially the tax collectors. This controversy story contains no miracles, and it is often known as a pronouncement story because the main point of the story is found in the pronouncement given at the end.
Since Galilee was ruled by a client king supported by Rome, the toll envisaged here must have been collected for Herod Antipas’s government. This toll is not to be equated with the poll tax (cf. 12:13–17) or land tax which was paid directly to Rome and collected by royal officials in the case of Galilee. Rather, the toll was levied on goods or for the right of passage.89 As the Sea of Galilee was teeming with fish, Levi’s toll collection probably came mainly from the fishing trade. The collection of these indirect taxes was farmed out to the highest bidder, and such privatization often resulted in overcharging: to cover possible future losses, to receive remuneration for enterprise, or simply because of greed. In the Talmud, toll-collectors are lumped together with murderers and robbers (m. Ned. 3:4). Moreover, their frequent contacts with the Gentiles exposed them to ritual defilement (so m. Tohar. 7:6), and their work, which helped support the conqueror, earned them the label of quislings. Hence, Jesus’ calling a toll collector to follow him is highly significant.
Levi’s prompt response (v. 14) recalls that of Jesus’ first disciples in 1:16–20. Based on the parallel in Matt 9:9, it is often concluded that Levi is Matthew, who is also mentioned in the list of apostles in Mark 3:18 (cf. Matt 10:3, where Matthew is called a toll collector in the list).90
A meal ensues and two things may be said about it. First, the venue is ambiguous (v. 15). The Greek en tē oikia could refer either to Jesus’ house or to Levi’s house. Since Luke 5:29 tells us it is Levi who prepares the feast, the latter is to be preferred. Secondly, this is not an ordinary meal because of the posture adopted. The Greek word katakeimai means to recline. This posture is adopted among Jews only for feasts or formal celebrations, such as the Passover.91 Otherwise they sit for meals.
The scribes belonging to the Pharisaic party (see excursus) have questions over Jesus’ dining with toll collectors and sinners (v. 16), presumably because such people were not scrupulous about ritual purity, or many other regulations of the Torah. Moreover, to eat with someone in ancient times often meant to be identified and reconciled with him. Hence, Jesus’ eating with the wrong company suggests he has no reservation about being identified with such people, and may convey the scandalous message that God accepts them.
Excursus: The Pharisees
The general consensus is that Pharisees were certainly not people who were simply “keeping up appearances.” The term probably comes from the Hebrew pa¯rûš, which means “separated one,” and was probably first coined by their opponents. According to Josephus, the Pharisees were one of four major sects (the others being the Sadducees, the Essenes, and what Josephus calls “the Fourth Philosophy,” who were probably the Zealots; see Josephus War 2:162–66 and Antiquities 13:171–73; 18:11–25). They were accorded the high honor of being accurate interpreters of Torah. Their origins remain shrouded in mystery but they were active in the two centuries straddling the beginning of the Common Era. Comprising mainly lay members, they nevertheless exercised powerful pressure on Jewish religion and policy. Their aim was to purify Israel through an intensified observance of Torah, inspired by the tradition of the elders, so the nation would be prepared for God’s promised return. So they set up what might be termed as “eating fellowships” so as to eat food in a state of purity, befitting that of the Temple. This concern for purity was not regarded simply as an inward form of piety, since the Pharisees were also linked with revolts (notably Saddok in the revolt of AD 6; see Josephus Antiquities 18:4). Purity could also be a political issue.92
Jesus identifies his mission in a proverb-like statement93: to restore sinners. It also implies that offering help to those who do not need it is futile. Understood this way, the term “righteous” is in the statement primarily as a kind of rhetorical counterpart to the “sinners.” It does not suggest Jesus thinks the Pharisees are really righteous.94
Incompatibility between the Old and the New (2:18–22)
Being the centerpiece of the collection of five controversy stories, the story contains the explanation of the key issue between Jesus and the religious authorities. The feasting theme is still maintained (as it is in the second story) through the implicit reference to a wedding banquet (v. 19). Jesus disciples’ lack of fasting sets them in contrast with the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist, and this engendered a controversy.
The only fast prescribed in the Torah is connected with Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29–31; 23:26–29). By the post-exilic period, a few other fasts were added to the national calendar (cf. Esth 9:31; Zech 8:19). Individuals might choose to fast whenever they deemed it necessary, such as to show piety and penitence. But such fasts were not placed in the same category as the prescribed national fasts. According to Luke 18:12, the Pharisees fasted twice in a week, and from other evidence we know this to be on Mondays and Thursdays (cf. Did. 81; m. Ta‘an. 14:5; b. Ta‘an. 10a). There is also evidence to show that the Pharisees and other Jews might have connected their fasting with the hastening of the eschaton (b. Sanh. 97b-98a; Life of Josephus 290; cf. Zech 8:19; 1 Sam 7:6; 1 Macc. 3:47, where fasts are performed to bring about victory in a holy war). Against this background we can understand the concern of the Pharisees, and why Jesus defends his disciples’ lack of fasting with the sort of illustrations he uses. The issue is not about the prescribed national fasts, but those undertaken personally to show penitence and hasten the coming of the eschaton.95
On the surface, Jesus seems to be using a common-sense analogy (i.e., fasting should not take place at weddings [v. 19]). However, there is a deeper meaning to this analogy. The climax of God’s restoration of the nation is expressed in Isaiah as a wedding (Isa 62:5). God, the bridegroom, will marry the land, or Zion, which means restoration for the nation. There are also other passages in the Prophets that describe God’s relationship with Israel, using the marital metaphor (Hos 2; Ezek 16; Jer 2:2; Isa 54:5). These passages presuppose a rupture in this relationship, brought about by Israel’s disobedience. Consequently, the repair of this rupture may be pictured as (another) wedding. Such a picture is also found at the climax of the book of Revelation (Rev 19:7–8; 21:1–3, 9–10).
The background clarifies why Jesus chooses the wedding metaphor. The point is that, through his ministry, the long-anticipated climax of God’s relationship with Israel has now come to pass. It is possible that the bridegroom refers to Jesus.96 What is notable is that there is no evidence of the Messiah’s being described as the bridegroom in Jewish literature before the sixth century AD (the first attestation is found in Pesiq. R. 37:2).97 Hence, the metaphor is not messianic. Instead, it implies that Jesus puts himself on par with the one God of Israel.98
What would the departure of the bridegroom mean (v. 20)? Clearly, it signals the end of festivity. What event is envisaged as corresponding to it? Usually this is believed to be Jesus’ departure, which would reintroduce the practice of fasting for his followers. It is equally possible, however, that it refers to divine abandonment, if we bear in mind the rich meaning of the nuptial metaphor in the OT. Being Jews, the disciples will share in the pain of the nation of Israel. The one possible event that is being referred to would be the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Perhaps the originator of this saying intentionally kept it ambiguous.
The nuptial metaphor is followed by two pictures that speak of incompatibility (vv. 21–22). New cloth in ancient times was unshrunk, unlike old cloth which had been shrunk through repeated washings. Patching an old garment with new cloth only adds to the problem. This notion of incompatibility extends to wineskins. New wine is still fermenting and produces carbon dioxide. This causes the wineskins to swell. New wineskins can take this pressure but not old wineskins because they have become brittle with age. So this centerpiece in the collection of five controversy stories points out the incompatibility of old practices with the arrival of the new. As such,