Mark. Kim Huat TanЧитать онлайн книгу.
has come in Jesus’ ministry.
Plucking Grain on a Sabbath (2:23–28)
With the fourth controversy story, a new issue is presented, which is about the Sabbath. The occasion is the plucking of grain by Jesus’ disciples to satisfy their hunger (v. 23). The Pharisees regard the disciples’ action as work (v. 24), and this sparks a controversy between them and Jesus. Jesus defends his disciples by appealing to an OT precedent (vv. 25–26), concluding with a pronouncement on the real meaning of the Sabbath (vv. 27–28).
The Sabbath commandment was first given in Exodus 20:10 and it serves as a pointer both to creation (Gen 2:2–3) and to the Exodus. In this respect it may also be regarded as a sign of the covenant, reminding the Jews of their covenantal status. Crassly understood, it forbids work on that day, but when it is set within the framework of creation and Exodus, it should also be viewed positively, such as rest and worship. What sort of activity is regarded as forbidden work, and by what criterion should such a decision be made, have naturally led to some debates among Jews. The Qumran community applied it strictly and forbade even the humanitarian action of helping an animal or a man out of a pit on Sabbath day (CD 11:13–17).
The disciples’ plucking grain to eat reflects the Jewish institution of pe’ah, which has its basis in the Torah (Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut 23:24–25). This was promulgated for the sustenance of the poor and the destitute. At issue in the text is whether the disciples are breaking a Sabbath regulation, as Exod 34:21 expressly forbids reaping on that day. Philo of Alexandria confirms this when he writes (in the first century) that Jews are not allowed to pluck fruit or cut any tree or plant on the Sabbath (Life of Moses 2.22; cf. the rabbinic pronouncement in m. Sab. 7:2). So the controversy is not over whether Jesus’ disciples could feed themselves on a Sabbath day, but over what they were doing to feed themselves.
Jesus defends his disciples’ actions by appealing to David’s example in 1 Sam 21:1–9. This incident probably took place on a Sabbath day, since the bread was presented before God each Sabbath (Lev 24:8).99 It is clear from 1 Sam 21:1–9 that Ahimelech was the high priest, and not his son Abiathar. Has Mark made a mistake in v. 26?100
Much depends on how the Greek phrase epi Abiathar archiereōs is to be understood, principally the construction epi + genitive. In Mark 12:26 the same epi + genitive construction is found (in this case epi tou batou), which does not mean “upon the burning bush,” but “in the account of the burning bush” (i.e., construing the epi + genitive as having locative force). So Mark may then be regarded as meaning “in the section of scripture having to do with Abiathar”101 in the present passage. Even so, it is hard to understand how 1 Sam 21 may be regarded as a passage featuring Abiathar the high priest. He is not even mentioned.
A second possibility is to translate the epi + genitive construction as “at the time of” (i.e., construing the epi + genitive as having temporal force), but to think of the title as being given prospectively.102 This will result in the translation “in the days of Abiathar, who later became the high priest,” just as we might say the Queen was born in such and such a time, when she was not actually queen at her birth. If the objection is raised that Abiathar’s name is not mentioned in the account, it may then be answered that Jews remembered him better because of his connection with David and with the first Temple. All this may smack of special pleading, because if there were no historical problem in the first place, every reader would have construed Mark as saying that David met Abiathar the high priest. Perhaps the best that we can do now is to say the jury is still out on this question.
What is more important is the point of comparison that Jesus hopes to make. The regulations governing the consecrated bread are found in Exod 25:30 and Lev 24:5–9. The point of comparison can either be that of (a) human needs justify the infringement of Torah regulations;103 or that (b) an anointed royal figure has the authority to override them.104 What is common to both cases is that there is precedence in Scripture for the overriding of a Torah regulation. As the latter point carries an important christological freight, we will explicate it further. Just as David was not condemned for performing something illegal, neither should Jesus be, provided the Pharisees were willing to consider Jesus in the same category. In this light, we may regard Jesus as speaking of his own special status.105 He, like David, is the yet-to-be-fully recognized (i.e., enthroned) king, and can dispense with a sacred regulation in order to sustain life: the life of his disciples.
Jesus’ pronouncement in v. 27 makes the lesson clear. It explains what has priority. Some Jewish writings state a similar viewpoint (Jub. 2:17; 2 Bar. 14:18; b. Yoma 85b). Perhaps the most relevant is that from the Melkita on Exodus 31:14: “The Sabbath is handed over to you, not you to it,” which means God’s gift of the Sabbath was given not to destroy but to bring about true humanity. However, this principle, while putting things in their proper place, is not meant to teach that any human being can decide when sacred regulations may be dispensed with. So the next pronouncement is needed to complete the thought (v. 28).
“Man” (v. 27) and the “son of man” (v. 28) may be construed as synonyms. But no Jew will accept that human beings in general may be the lords of the Sabbath.106 So this wordplay should be regarded as pointing to something more significant. If the Sabbath is made for men, then the divinely appointed ruler of true humanity, who is described as “one who is like a son of man” in Daniel 7, must have the authority to decide when this Sabbath regulation may be dispensed with in the wider interest of humanity. Much has been discussed on the meaning of the Greek connective ōste. It is possible to regard it as a loose transition.107 Alternatively, we may posit Mark’s editorial hand is at work here108 (i.e., he is drawing the conclusion from the story for his audience).
This second usage of the “Son of Man” phrase gels very well with the first (2:10). Twice the phrase is used in connection with prerogatives belonging solely to God: the forgiving of sins, which also mean the transgression of divine regulations, and the Lord of such regulations, especially the Sabbath. The “Son of Man” phrase therefore carries very significant christological freight for Mark.
Healing on a Sabbath (3:1–6)
The final controversy story in the cycle is again over the Sabbath, but the locality is now the synagogue (v. 1). As this is the final story, Mark makes it clear that deep animosity has taken root. The religious leaders are no longer interested in explanations, but are simply looking for a cause to condemn Jesus (v. 2).
The question of v. 4 is full of irony and, not surprisingly, unanswered. If one may synthesize from the Mishnah and the Talmud, it may be inferred that some Jews believed saving lives overrode the Sabbath (m. Yoma 8:6; b. Yoma 85b). For illnesses which were not life-threatening, however, they might not be treated (m. Sab. 14:3–4; cf. CD 11:9–10).109
The Greek behind “stubborn hearts” (v. 5) is pōrōsis tēs kardias, which is derived from the Hebrew šĕrirût lēb and means literally “hardness of heart.” This description is typically used of Pharaoh (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 8:32; 14:4), and is often found in prophetic denunciations of the nation of Judah just before the exile (Jer 3:17; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; cf. Deut 29:18; Ps 81:15). This description is now applied to Jesus’ opponents. There is irony here. The charge of being stubborn and hard-hearted is a typical prophetic charge against the Israel of old. Now it is applied to those who claimed to know better, and should know better, being religious leaders (3:5). The prophets’ audience were Torah breakers but Jesus’ audience are supposedly Torah upholders. All the poignant lessons of the exile appeared to have an opposite effect on those who lead.
It is astonishing that the Pharisees and the Herodians can collude together (v. 6), but nothing brings enemies together like having a common archenemy. The term “Herodians” denotes probably not a religious sect but the supporters of the ruling dynasty of Herod110 (cf. War 1:319, where a similar term is used), which was not Jewish but Idumean, and was in place only because of Rome. This was a dynasty which was resisted by the Pharisees (cf. Josephus Antiquities 17:41–47; War 1:571).
Mark’s Achievement with this Cycle of Stories
Within a short span of narrative, Mark succeeds in showing what the key issues between Jesus and the religious authorities are, and what the central reason behind them all is. This will prepare