8. Conflict in Galilee. Chs. 2:1–3:6
The five narratives found in Chs. 2:1–3:6 share in common the element of controversy. Jesus and his disciples are covertly (Chs. 2:6–7; 3:2) or openly (Ch. 2:16, 18, 24) challenged by the Pharisees and the scribal interpreters of their tradition. They are offended by Jesus’ actions; their indignation is expressed in the categorical statement, “he blasphemes” (Ch. 2:7) or in the demanding question, “Why does he eat with publicans and sinners?” (Ch. 2:16). The reaction of the scribes and Pharisees calls forth a crucial pronouncement of Jesus which sheds light on the new situation his coming has introduced. In recounting these incidents Mark makes no attempt to tell the story for its own sake. There is no dwelling on details which might create narrative interest or sustain suspense. In faithfulness to the tradition, he re-creates the events in order to make intelligible the words of Jesus which informed the Church and silenced his adversaries.
It is unlikely that these five incidents happened consecutively or even at the same period in Jesus’ ministry. Mark introduces them in a most general way: “Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting …”; “One sabbath he was going through the grain fields …”; “Again he entered the synagogue …” These were probably brought together in the tradition to which Mark was heir by the common element of conflict in Galilee. The incidents were remembered because they illumined aspects of the messianic mission: Ch. 2:1–17 concerns sin and sinners, and the forgiveness of God; Chs. 2:18–3:6 concern fasting and the observance of the sabbath, and the intention of God. This Galilean unit occupies an important position early in the Marcan outline and is balanced in the latter half of the Gospel by a series of five controversies in Jerusalem (Chs. 11:27–12:37). Together they indicate that the intrusion of the radically new situation provoked sustained conflict with the old and was the historical occasion for the decision that Jesus must be put to death.
(a) The Authority to Forgive Sins. Ch. 2:1–12
1And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house.1
2And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door: and he spake the word unto them.
3And they come,2 bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy,3 borne of four.
4And when they could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up,4 they let down the bed5 whereon the sick of the palsy lay.
5And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven.
6But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even God?
8And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your heart?
9Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10But that you may know that the Son of man hath authority to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy),6
11I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.
12And he arose, and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
The first account centers in the healing of a paralyzed man and raises the question of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. The pericope sheds light on the relation of sin and sickness to healing and forgiveness and affirms that the authority to forgive sins on earth is the unique prerogative of the Son of Man.
1–2 The movement of Jesus in the early phase of the Galilean ministry seems to alternate between “the wilderness” and the city. From Capernaum (Ch. 1:21–34) he had departed to a “wilderness place” (Ch. 1:35) before going to other towns and villages proclaiming the Kingdom of God. When his preaching tour was disrupted by the presence of crowds at the city gates clamoring for some benefaction he again returned to “wilderness places” (Ch. 1:45). His entrance into Capernaum marks a return to the city. The house in which he stayed is not identified, but it is natural to think of the home belonging to Peter and Andrew (Ch. 1:29). His presence could not be concealed for more than a few days, and a large crowd gathered within the house and about the doorway. Jesus spoke to them “the word,” i.e., the word of God concerning the nearness of the kingdom and the necessity for repentance and faith (cf. Ch. 1:14 f.).7
3–5 Jesus’ preaching was interrupted by the arrival of a small party of men who carried a paralyzed man on a mattress. It is impossible to say anything definite about the nature of the man’s affliction beyond the fact that he was unable to walk. The determination of those who brought him to Jesus suggests that his condition was wretched. When they were unable to break through the crowd they ascended a stairway on the side of the house to the flat roof which they broke open in order to lower the man before Jesus.8 Jesus recognized this bold expedient as an expression of faith: the four clearly believed that he had the power to heal this man.
Jesus’ response to their faith was the unexpected statement, “Son, your sins are forgiven!”9 The pronouncement was startling because it seemed inappropriate and even irrelevant to the immediate situation. It is intelligible, however, against the background provided by the OT where sin and disease, forgiveness and healing are frequently inter-related concepts.10 Healing is conditioned by the forgiveness of God and is often the demonstration of that forgiveness (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14; Ps. 103:3; 147:3; Isa. 19:22; 38:17; 57:18 f.). In a number of texts “healing” and “forgiveness” are interchangeable terms (Ps. 41:4, “heal me, for I have sinned against thee”; Jer. 3:22 and Hos. 14:4, God will “heal” his people’s backsliding).11 Healing is a gracious movement of God into the sphere of withering and decay which are the tokens of death at work in a man’s life. It was not God’s intention that man should live with the pressure of death upon him. Sickness, disease and death are the consequence of the sinful condition of all men. Consequently every healing is a driving back of death and an invasion of the province of sin. That is why it is appropriate for Jesus to proclaim the remission of sins. It is unnecessary to think of a corresponding sin for each instance of sickness; there is no suggestion in the narrative that the paralytic’s physical suffering was related to a specific sin or was due to hysteria induced by guilt. Jesus’ pronouncement of pardon is the recognition that man can be genuinely whole only when the breach occasioned by sin has been healed through God’s forgiveness of sins.12
6–7 The scribes, who are introduced into the Marcan record at this point, were men who were schooled in the written Law of God and its oral interpretation. They were admitted to a closed order of legal specialists only after they were deemed fully qualified and had been set apart through the laying on of hands.13 They are mentioned frequently in Mark’s Gospel but only once is the reference favorable (Ch. 12:28–34). As guardians of the teaching office they challenged Jesus concerning both his message and his refusal to submit to the halakha, the oral law, which the scribes regarded as binding in its authority.
The scribes who were present on this occasion were offended by Jesus’ declaration. In the OT God alone can forgive sins, and later Judaism adhered scrupulously to this understanding.14 The Messiah would exterminate the godless in Israel, crush demonic power and protect his people from the reign of sin, but the forgiveness of sins was never attributed to him. Jesus proclaimed the remission of sins like a prophet (2 Sam. 12:13, “And Nathan said to David, ‘The Lord has pardoned your sins’ ”). The scribes rejected this pretension to the prophetic office as so much arrogance. They sensed in Jesus’ declaration of forgiveness an affront to the majesty and authority of God, which is the essence of blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, but the evidence of guilt had to be incontrovertible.15 The significance of the suspicion of blasphemy so early in the Galilean ministry is that it becomes the basis of a formal accusation and condemnation before the Sanhedrin at the close of the ministry (Ch. 14:61–64).
Jesus’ pronouncement was clearly ambiguous. This ambiguity was consistent with the indirectness of revelation which characterized his ministry; there was both a revealing and a veiling of his dignity. In the declaration of verse 5 there was nothing which suggested his personal power over sin. The reaction of the scribes does not imply that they have understood otherwise. They object to Jesus’ conviction that he can speak for God. Jesus did exercise the divine prerogative but in a veiled way that could be recognized unambiguously only after the resurrection.
8–9 Jesus sensed the sharp disapproval of the scribes and drew the attention of those present to it by addressing them with the pointed question, “Is it easier to say to a paralysed man ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or to say ‘Arise, pick up your mattress and walk’?” Jesus’ use of a counter-question in situations of debate recurs in other narratives (Chs. 3:4; 11:30; 12:37), and appears to be characteristic of his response to conflict.16 It is important to appreciate its significance here. The scribes might think that a declaration of forgiveness is easier than one of healing, the efficacy of which would be open to immediate verification. This judgment seems to lie behind their contemptuous question, “Why does this fellow speak like this?” (verse 7). By use of a counter-question Jesus challenges their facile assumption that he has acted irresponsibly as a dispenser of cheap grace. It also prepares for the word of healing which demonstrates that forgiveness has actually been realized in the experience of the afflicted man. It is the declaration of forgiveness which is the more essential—and the more difficult—of the two actions.
10–11 Verse 10 constitutes a well-known crux in the interpretation of this pericope. Structurally, there is an awkward change of addressee in the middle of the verse. Jesus appears to be addressing the scribes: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”; the text, however, proceeds with the abrupt transition, “he says to the paralytic, ‘I say unto you …’ ” A more significant problem arises from the public use of “Son of Man” so early in Jesus’ ministry. In the presence of unbelieving scribes Jesus appears to make an open and unreserved claim to be the Son of Man with authority to forgive sins. “Son of Man” is a designation of transcendent dignity. With the exception of Ch. 2:10 and 28, it does not enter the Marcan record until after the acknowledgment that Jesus is the Messiah in Ch. 8:29. Then it occurs twelve times and provides the key to Jesus’ self-disclosure to his disciples17 Basic to Mark’s theology of the cross and resurrection is the conviction that there was no unreserved disclosure of the Son of Man until after the resurrection; prior to that time there was a veiled disclosure to men of faith, not unbelief (see on Ch. 9:9). The thought that the Lord affirmed his dignity and function before the scribes during his Galilean ministry is in conflict both with general probability and more particularly with Mark’s testimony concerning Jesus’ consistent refusal to reveal himself to the scribes, priests and elders who challenged his authority (cf. Ch. 11:33). To hold that he did so in Galilee contradicts the posture he assumed before unbelief throughout his earthly ministry.18
A common approach to these difficulties is to treat verses 5b–10 as an interpolation into a healing narrative in which verse 11 originally followed verse 5a: “And when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, Arise, take up your mattress and go home.’ ”19 There is no support for this radical expedient other than the disjointed construction in verses 10 and 11. If verse 10 is momentarily left out of consideration, the narrative is concerned with a single question of fact: is the declaration of pardon uttered by Jesus true and effective? The fact of pardon is announced in verse 5, questioned in verses 6–9, validated by the healing in verse 11, and recognized by the crowd in verse 12. This homogeneous development demonstrates the literary unity of the pericope. It also puts in clear relief the “commentary” character of verse 10.
It is necessary to recognize that Mark is responsible for verse 10 in its entirety. The awkward syntactical structure is deliberate and functional. It has been shown that in Hellenistic and Byzantine Greek a purpose clause is used to introduce an independent proposition expressing a decision or, more often, a weakened commandment, prayer or desire.20 The Marcan clause should be translated, “Know that the Son of Man has authority … ,” rather than “in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority …” Verse 10a is a parenthetical statement21 addressed by the evangelist to the Christian readers of the Gospel to explain the significance of the closing phase of the healing for them. In verse 5 nothing necessarily affirms the personal power of Jesus over sin. But this is precisely the crucial point of verse 10a. They may be assured that Jesus has both the right and the authority to forgive sins.22 The significance of Jesus’ action remained veiled for the scribes and the multitude. They were startled and recognized that Jesus had proved that the sins of the paralytic had really been pardoned. Nevertheless, they did not recognize the authority of Jesus to remit sins. The function of verse 10b (“he said to the paralytic …”) is to indicate the end of Mark’s “commentary” and the return to the incident itself.23
This is the only place in the Gospel where the pardon of sins is associated with the Son of Man. Nowhere else in the Synoptic or apocalyptic tradition is it suggested that the Son of Man can forgive sins. It was only in the light of the resurrection that the primitive Church recognized unequivocally the full extent of Jesus’ authority. Jesus demonstrated in this incident that he was more than a prophet; the power manifested in the remission of sins and the healing of the paralyzed man belonged properly to him. The risen Christ still exercises the remission of sins on earth. The purpose of Mark’s commentary is to make the community of believers aware that they have experienced the messianic forgiveness of the Son of Man.
12 When Jesus caused the paralytic to walk before the eyes of his critics, they were forced to recognize that this declaration of forgiveness had been effective. The inter-relationship of forgiveness and healing is emphasized by the conclusion to the narrative: having received the forgiveness of God, the afflicted man receives healing. This is the nature of the salvation which Jesus brings. The healing of the paralytic was more than a display of mercy to a wretched man. The announcement and presentation of radical healing to a man in his entire person was a sign of the Kingdom of God drawn near.24 The paralytic experienced the fulfilment of God’s promise that the lame would share in the joy of the coming salvation (Isa. 35:6; Jer. 31:8). The demonstration that God had come near to his people was startling. All present glorified God because he redeemed men from every distress. It has been objected that Mark’s “all” is too comprehensive, “an excusable and fairly obvious overstatement” which was not intended to include the scribes.25 The objection is unfounded. They too were thoroughly shaken by the extraordinary event which had occurred. Their glorification of God does not mean that they thanked him for sending Jesus, or even that they recognized the relationship between Jesus’ declaration of forgiveness and the actual restoration to health of the paralytic. It consisted rather in the statement “we have never seen anything like this.” In the eyes of the evangelist, this amounted to an acknowledgment of the dignity of Jesus in spite of their intentions.
(b) The Call of a Tax-farmer. Ch. 2:13–14
13And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.
14And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
13 The report that Jesus withdrew to the sea and there taught a multitude appears at first sight fragmentary and abrupt. In Ch. 2:1–12 he is in Capernaum, and in Ch. 2:14 he is again within the city since the toll booth was not situated at some isolated point on the shore. Why should Jesus momentarily leave the city only to return there in pursuit of his mission? This action becomes meaningful when it is seen as part of a recurring pattern in Mark’s Gospel. After a demonstration of the saving power of God, Jesus withdraws from the populace to a lonely region, whether the wilderness, the mountain or the sea.26 In Ch. 2:13 the sea provides a place of withdrawal. The preceding account concluded with the people praising God; Jesus’ withdrawal follows an episode of distinct victory. Yet the sea-side has none of the associations of a peaceful retreat. Mark makes that clear through his reference to the pursuing multitude and Jesus’ teaching ministry.27 Its significance is deeper and more ominous. The withdrawal to the sea should be viewed as an approach to a realm which discloses its real nature in the raging of the sea at the height of a squall, as twice reported by Mark (Chs. 4:37 f.; 6:47 f.). Like the return to the wilderness, the move to the sea entails a deliberate entrance into the sphere of forces which manifest their hostility to God.28 Jesus returns to the place where he confronts Satan and renews his vow to perform the will of God. The consequences of this withdrawal are the calling of a disciple (Ch. 2:14), the mediation of messianic forgiveness and the renewal of conflict (Ch. 2:15–17).
14 The call of Levi is presented in its barest essentials. Mark records his name, his occupation, the word addressed to him and his response. No attempt is made to identify him further. Moreover, when the evangelist records the names of those whom Jesus chose to be with him (Ch. 3:13–19), there is no reference to “Levi the son of Alphaeus.”29 These facts indicate that in Ch. 2:14 Mark is concerned to illustrate the radical character of Jesus’ call, and that it is the nature of the call, rather than the name of the one called, which is of primary importance.
Levi’s seat of customs was located at Capernaum, the first site of importance around the northern end of the Sea encountered by travellers from the territory of Herod Philip and from the Decapolis. Levi would be a Jewish tax official in the service of Herod Antipas.30 Such officials were detested everywhere and were classed with the vilest of men.31 The practice of leasing the customs duty of a district at a fixed sum encouraged gross oppression by tax officers anxious to secure as large a profit as possible. When a Jew entered the customs service he was regarded as an outcast from society: he was disqualified as a judge or a witness in a court session, was excommunicated from the synagogue, and in the eyes of the community his disgrace extended to his family.32
In two inscriptions from Magnesia and Ephesus reference is made to “those who are concerned with the toll on fish.”33 Apparently fish were taxed in these Asian cities, and it is possible that a toll on incoming fish was collected in Capernaum as well. It is probable that Levi knew the fishermen who accompanied Jesus. He may have also known Jesus, who spent considerable time in Capernaum. This would do much to explain his response to Jesus when he was called to discipleship. Be this as it may, what was remembered about this incident in the early Church was the brevity and urgency of Jesus’ summons and the radical obedience demonstrated in Levi’s dramatic response. Abandoning all other concerns, he arose and followed Jesus. The call of Levi has its sequel in the following pericope where grace is extended to yet other despised men in Capernaum.
(c) Messiah Eats with Sinners. Ch. 2:15–17
15And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans34 and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.35
16And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans, said unto his disciples, How is it36 that he eateth and drinketh37 with publicans and sinners?
17And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
15–16 As a spontaneous expression of his joy Levi38 gave a banquet for Jesus and his disciples to which he invited his fellow tax officers and a group of men who are designated “sinners.” This term cannot be understood in the generally accepted sense of “transgressors of the moral law of God” since Mark would then have written “tax officers and other sinners.” The term is technical in this context for a class of people who were regarded by the Pharisees as inferior because they showed no interest in the scribal tradition. With the derisive epithet “the people of the land,” the scribes often dismissed as inconsequential the common people who possessed neither time nor inclination to regulate their conduct by Pharisaic standards. They were particularly despised because they did not ear their food in a state of ceremonial cleanness and because they failed to separate the tithe.39 The designation “sinners” as used by the scribes is roughly equivalent to “outcasts.” The joint expression “publicans and sinners” denotes well-known and despised classes among the people.
The Pharisees and their scribes40 were the spiritual descendants of the Ḥasidim who had distinguished themselves by zeal for observance of the Law in spite of the repressive measures of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.41 They were deeply devoted to the Law and strictly governed their own life by the interpretation passed down in the scribal tradition. They criticized Jesus because he failed to observe the distinction between “the righteous” and “the sinners” which was an essential component of their piety. As a teacher of the Law he should have recognized that it was inappropriate for him to recline at table with the men gathered in Levi’s house. In their banquets the Pharisees attempted to maintain an exclusive fellowship in order to avoid ritual impurity from contact with others who maintained the traditions less strictly. They considered it disgraceful for one of their teachers to recline at table with those unversed in the Law, and Jesus’ disregard of time-honored custom offended them.42
17 Jesus silenced their protest with a traditional proverb: “the healthy have no need of a physician, but rather the sick.”43 With this maxim, which the Pharisees recognized as valid, Jesus implied that it was his responsibility to sit at table fellowship with excisemen and the despised common people. He is willing to adopt the scribal distinction between the righteous and sinners, but limits his own activity to the outcasts.
The refusal to call the righteous is open to alternative interpretations. (1) Because the scribes were confident in their own righteousness they were incapable of perceiving the call to repentance. “Righteous” is used ironically or ad hominem, while the “sinners” are the humble who hear and respond to the call of God.44 (2) Jesus recognized the true zeal for righteousness which distinguished the Pharisees. He shared the common conviction in Judaism that the sins of the righteous did not seriously jeopardize their relationship with God. If he does not occupy himself with the righteous it is not because of disdain. As a sensitive pastor he reserves all of his solicitude for the sinners. It is the impoverishment of this latter group, not their good disposition, which Jesus stresses.45
There are several elements which suggest that there is at least an implied condemnation of the scribes in this statement. The pericope demands the identification of “the righteous” with the Pharisees, and the tax collectors and outcasts with “the sinners.” If Jesus at times spoke generously about the Pharisees, he was untiring in condemning their interpretation of the Law which had blurred God’s intention (Chs. 2:23–27; 3:1–5; 7:1–15). This point is clear when the pericope is seen in the context of the hostility of the scribes of the Pharisees (Chs. 2:6, 16; 3:6, 22). It is accordingly better to see in the use of “righteous” in Ch. 2:17 a point of irony against those who believe themselves to be righteous. Jesus had not come to call for the Kingdom of God men like the scribes who considered themselves to be righteous, but outcasts who knew they needed to be made whole.
David Daube has called attention to the tripartite form of this pericope, a form which it shares with at least six other Synoptic incidents.46 (1) Jesus performs a revolutionary action; (2) the Pharisees or their scribes remonstrate with him; and (3) he makes a pronouncement by which they are silenced. This form, with its direct, dramatic presentation, was well suited to emphasize the startling character of the Kingdom of God which broke in, step by step, as Jesus and those around him performed their task. The first part of the form described an action performed on some definite occasion: Jesus ate with tax officials and outcasts. The middle part of the form, the protest issued in the form of a challenge, assumes that Jesus and his disciples ought to behave as the scribes do. Because Jesus is judged as essentially belonging to the same camp as his remonstrants, his actions appear offensive to them. The third member of the form, the silencing of the remonstrants, confirms this observation. Jesus justifies his action by adducing a traditional proverb which his opponents recognize as valid (“the healthy have no need of a physician …”). Jesus starts from the same basis as do his antagonists; if he did not, he would be unable to silence them. Where he differs from them is in his interpretation of the teaching adduced. The third member of the form describes the defeat of the scribes by an argument resting upon a basis they acknowledge.
It is the first part of this form, Jesus’ radical action, which brings into focus the theologically significant elements in this incident. To the scribes Jesus’ conduct was offensive because it was improper for a teacher of the Law to share meal fellowship with outcast and ignorant common people. Jesus’ action was actually more revolutionary than they could imagine. When Jesus shared meal fellowship with the tax officials and the common people, it was Messiah who was sitting with sinners. The expression used in Ch. 2:15, “they reclined at table together with Jesus,”47 suggests that Jesus—the Messiah—and not Levi, was the host at this festive meal. When this is understood, the interest of the entire pericope centers on the significance of Messiah eating with sinners.48 The specific reference in verse 17 to Jesus’ call of sinners to the Kingdom suggests that the basis of table-fellowship was messianic forgiveness, and the meal itself was an anticipation of the messianic banquet.49 When Jesus broke bread with the outcasts, Messiah ate with them at his table and extended to them fellowship with God. Mark’s interest in recording this incident lies precisely in the demonstration of forgiveness which it affords. It takes its place very naturally with the two preceding sections of the Gospel (Ch. 2:1–12, 13–14) as a sovereign demonstration of the forgiveness of sins. The meal was an extension of the grace of God and an anticipation of the consummation when Messiah will sit down with sinners in the Kingdom of God.
(d) The New Situation. Ch. 2:18–22
18And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
19And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast,50 while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
20But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day.
21No man seweth a piece of undressed51 cloth on an old garment: else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made.52
22And no man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins.53
Having exhibited Jesus’ relationship to sin and sinners, Mark turns to the issues of fasting and observance of the Sabbath. In these next narratives it is evident that opposition to Jesus has become heightened and outspoken (Ch. 2:18, 24). It reaches a point of culmination in the decision to seek his death (Ch. 3:6). The issue of fasting may have been important to the community within which Mark wrote since he brings together three statements of the Lord which have a bearing upon it. The introduction lacks detail, but is sufficient to indicate to a non-Palestinian community the historical circumstances in which the question of fasting arose during Jesus’ ministry.
18 The reference to “the disciples of the Pharisees” is not technical since the Pharisees as such did not have disciples (although individual scribes among them did).54 The designation indicates that larger group of people who were influenced by Pharisaic ideals and practice. This may be the proper nuance of “the disciples of John” as well.55 They had submitted to the baptism of repentance and continued to pattern their lives in accordance with John’s prophetic word. It is probable that John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting for quite different reasons, and that it is the fast observed by the disciples of John which particularly interested Mark, who mentions this group first.
The OT specified only one day when fasting was mandatory upon all Israel. This was the Day of Atonement, designated as a day for cleansing from sin and affliction of the soul (Ex. 20:10; Lev. 16:1–34; 23:26–32; 35:9; Num. 29:9–11). In this context fasting is an act of repentance in preparation for expiation.56 By the close of the prophetic period other occasions of fasting had become traditional,57 and these observances continued into the first century.58 At this time it was customary for the Pharisees to fast voluntarily on Monday and Thursday of each week.59 While the origins of this practice are obscure, it appears to have been an expression of piety and self-consecration. It is probably to this voluntary fast that reference is made in the statement “the Pharisees were fasting.”
In the OT fasting may be an expression of mourning,60 and it has been suggested that John’s disciples were fasting because of the death of their master.61 While this is possible the proposal lacks support from any detail in the text. It seems better to understand their fast as an expression of repentance designed specifically to hasten the coming of the time of redemption. This understanding gives point to Jesus’ use of the wedding image (which implies a contrast between John’s pre-messianic travail and Jesus’ messianic feast), and appears to be assumed in the two brief parables appended to this initial metaphor. The demand to know why Jesus’disciples do not fast is critical in intention; the unidentified questioners wish to expose the disciples of Jesus to their disadvantage. In all probability many of them had been disciples of John who were expected to maintain the discipline encouraged by their master.
19–20 Jesus, in typical debate fashion, poses a counter-question designed to center attention on the new situation created by his presence with the disciples. He replies: “Can the bridal guests mourn during the bridal celebrations?”62 The statement may be proverbial for any inappropriate action, since a wedding was a time of great joy and festivity, heralded by music and gala processions.63 To fast in the presence of the groom would be unthinkable. Although the image of the wedding feast was sometimes used by the rabbis to express the joy of the messianic era, neither in the OT nor in later Jewish literature was the Messiah represented as the bridegroom.64 It is important to stress this fact, for it indicates that Jesus’ statement would not have been recognized by his disciples or his adversaries as an explicitly messianic assertion. Jesus speaks of himself in an implicit, veiled manner because he has not yet spoken openly and in detail to his disciples about his distinctive mission (see Ch. 8:32).65 The messianic significance of this use of the bridal image was understood only later.66 The central comparison between the wedding festivities and Jesus’ disciples lies in the joy which they possess in their master. Jesus emphasizes this with his answer to the critical question. The reason for the fundamentally different position of his disciples is that “the bridegroom is with them,” and in his presence they experience joy. Even on this veiled level of parabolic speech something significant is said: an expression of sorrow is inappropriate to the new situation which has come with Jesus’ presence.
Jesus is both the center and the cause of the joy that his disciples experience. Yet this condition will not remain undisturbed. Jesus referred to a period when the bridegroom would be taken away and then his disciples would understand the meaning of sorrow.67 These words have been judged to be alien to the context with its stress on the joy in the bridal celebrations; here, it is urged, the early Church reflects on Jesus’ passion.68 This inference is unwarranted. The language is cryptic in its reference to the bridegroom. Jesus speaks only of a time in which he will be taken away from his friends; there is no definite allusion to a violent death. The inner connection between Ch. 2:19a and Ch. 2:20 demands only that the phrase “because he is with them” be placed in opposition to “when he shall be taken away.”69 When the primitive Christian community reflected upon this word after Jesus’ suffering and death it is natural that they should understand it in the light of that event. But in its original setting the word was veiled and spoke only of a time when joy would be exchanged for sorrow because Jesus would be with them no longer. It is especially important to notice that the specific formulation which Mark has recorded finds no explicit echo in the passion narrative of his Gospel.70
The final phrase of Jesus’ statement (“and then they will fast on that day”) has evoked the attention of interpreters of the Gospel from the earliest period up to the present.71 Jesus had spoken initially of “the days which are coming” (plural) but now he speaks of “that day” (singular). The veiled character of the phrase is appropriate to the context with its other cryptic elements and scarcely permits an allusion which is precise.72 A common suggestion is that the reference is to Good Friday, and that the formulation reflects the practice of the Church of Rome which early observed a fast on this occasion.73 In view of the pervading contrast between joy and sorrow in the developed image it is better to understand “fasting” in the broader sense of experiencing sorrow.74
21–22 The twin parables appended to Jesus’ initial statements may have been delivered on some other occasion.75 They possess a relevance which is broader than the narrow issue of fasting, and Mark makes no attempt to link them narrowly to the preceding verses. Their appropriateness to the issue at hand lies in the commentary they provide on the significance of Jesus’ presence with his disciples.76 These brief parables directly answer the challenge implied in the question, Why do your disciples not fast?
Like the bridal metaphor, the sayings about the new garment and the new wine describe inappropriate actions (using valuable new cloth to mend a tattered garment; pouring fermenting new wine into worn-out damaged wineskins). In this context the meaning of these sayings is quite specific. If Jesus’ disciples were to pursue the Pharisaic practice or continue to emulate the Baptist, they would be like people who put a new piece of cloth on an old garment, or who pour new wine into old skins. The practice of John’s disciples was oriented to preparation for the coming of the Kingdom, especially in its aspect of judgment. That is why they fast. Jesus, on the other hand, came proclaiming that the time was fulfilled, and it is his presence which is the decisive element of fulfilment. The behavior of his disciples reflects the joyful certainty of the breaking in of the time of salvation. They experience the joy of the Kingdom because they belong to him. The time of the bridegroom signals the passing of the old and the coming of “the new.”77 Here “new” means that which is totally different; it is a characteristic which belongs to the final age.78 The new disrupts the old and bursts its mold. That is why maintaining what is old (fasting as an expression of repentance in preparation for the judgment to come) represents a misunderstanding and a basic ignorance that the time of salvation has already come with Jesus. The Pharisaic practice of fasting perpetuated the old in an unbelieving mechanical fashion blind to the new moment which God had introduced. The presence of Jesus inaugurates the messianic time of joy when fasting is rendered superfluous, so long as he is in the midst of his people. The images of the wedding, the new cloth and the new wine are distinctly eschatological in character, like that of the messianic banquet in Ch. 2:15–17. It may be this factor which has caused them to be closely associated by the evangelist. They stress the element of fulfilment which is marked by the presence of Jesus. His person is both the sign that the old situation has been radically altered and the pledge that the reality described by these images shall be experienced in the appropriate time.
(e) Sabbath Infringement and the Lord of the Sabbath. Ch. 2:23–28
23And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears.
24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25And he said unto them, Did you never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he and they that were with him?
26How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the show-bread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
23–24 The action of the disciples in plucking heads of grain as they passed through a field on a Sabbath walk79 provoked the fourth controversy recorded by Mark. The action in itself was wholly legitimate. The Mosaic Law provided explicitly that “when you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hands, but you shall not bring a sickle into your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deut. 23:25). The disciples’ conduct came under the critical scrutiny of the Pharisees only because it occurred on the Sabbath. The action of plucking grain was interpreted as reaping, an act of work in violation of the Sabbath rest. Reaping on the Sabbath was formally prohibited by the Mosaic Law (Ex. 34:21), and of the 39 main categories of work forbidden on the Sabbath in the Mishnah, the third is reaping.80
Among the scribes it was assumed that a teacher was responsible for the behavior of his disciples. For this reason the Pharisees address their protest directly to Jesus. They raise a question of halakha, of what is legally permitted or prohibited,81 perhaps with the intention of satisfying the legal requirement of a warning prior to prosecution for Sabbath violation.82
25–26 Jesus answered their protest with an appeal to Scripture, calling attention to the incident recorded in 1 Sam. 21:1–6. The formulation, “Have you not read … ,” followed by a counter-question reflects the language of debate, and is appropriate to the context. Nevertheless, there are difficult questions raised by verses 25–26 which relate to the form of the allusion itself, the appropriateness of the reference to a question which centered in the Sabbath, and the relative value such an appeal would have in technical debate.
The chief problem in the allusion to David’s act is the reference to Abiathar the high priest. If the meaning is that David received the five loaves of holy bread at the time when83 Abiathar was high priest the reference is incorrect. The incident occurred when Ahimelech was high priest, and it was he who gave David the bread. Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech who escaped the massacre of the high priestly family, and who enters the record for the first time a chapter later (1 Sam. 22:20). Because he served as high priest and was better known in association with David than his father, it is commonly assumed a primitive error entered the tradition before it came into Mark’s hands or an early marginal gloss which was in error moved into the text.84 The difficulty was early felt and is reflected in the manuscript tradition.85 An attractive proposal is that Mark’s intention has been misunderstood in the translation of the passage. The same grammatical construction occurs in Ch. 12:26, where it must be translated “have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage concerning the Bush, how God spoke unto him … ?” The construction is designed to call attention to the section of a biblical book where the reference is found, in the above instance Ex. 3:1ff. In Ch. 2:26 Mark may have inserted the reference to Abiathar to indicate the section of the Samuel scroll in which the incident could be located.86
The allusion to David and his men receiving the showbread has often been felt to be inappropriate since there is no explicit reference to the Sabbath in the 1 Samuel account. Why is this particular incident relevant to the situation at hand? Jesus’ reference to this occasion in David’s life was not an isolated phenomenon in early Jewish exposition, for it attracted the attention of the rabbis as well. From details in the text, and especially from David’s words, “how much more then today,” they concluded that the incident occurred upon the Sabbath.87 This interpretation may have been current already at the time of Jesus’ ministry. There is, however, no reflection of this exegetical tradition in Mark’s narrative. The emphasis rather falls on the association of David and his men, because this is the detail that provides the parallel to Jesus and his company of men. Twice in the text inferences are drawn from 1 Sam. 21:3–6 to underscore this fact (“when he had need and was hungry, he and they that were with him … he gave also to them that were with him”). David’s conduct included that of his men. The relationship between the OT incident and the infringement of the Sabbath by the disciples lies in the fact that on both occasions pious men did something forbidden.88 The fact that God does not condemn David for his action indicates that the narrowness with which the scribes interpreted the Law was not in accordance with the tenor of Scripture. Jesus argues that the tradition of the Pharisees is unduly stringent and exceeds the intention of the Law.
The relative value of an appeal to an historical argument like this has been questioned in the light of what is known of rabbinic debate.89 It was of the essence of the scribal approach to halakha that any detailed rule must rest, directly or indirectly, on an actual precept promulgated in the Scriptures. An appeal to an example from history belongs to the realm of haggadha; it may be helpful to illumine a point of halakha which has been already established or to define the character of the amenities of life, but it would be without force in technical debate. These considerations are certainly true for the end of the first century, and may have been in effect much earlier. In the absence of any reference to the scribes, however, it is unwarranted to speak of “technical debate” to establish a point of halakha. The argument was of a popular kind designed for the Pharisees. If there was any attempt to debate in formal fashion, Mark shows no interest in preserving it for his readers. What was important to them was Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath and the pronouncement he made upon it. The reference to David and his men was appropriate because it offered an analogy to Jesus and his disciples; but what is preserved is merely a fragment of the conversation indicating the direction in which the argument moved. Of crucial importance in the argument was the phrase “which it is not permitted to eat, except for the priests,” for these words resume the legal terminology with which the Pharisees had couched their question.90
27–28 The relationship of verses 27–28 to those which immediately precede, and to the larger question of Sabbath observance, continues to provoke discussion and conjecture.91 The problems of the text that have encouraged conjecture arise from the MS tradition of verse 27,92 the apparent lack of cohesion between verses 27 and 28,93 the divergences between Mark and Matthew,94 and the interpretation of the title “Son of Man” in verse 28.95 These problems justify asking whether verse 27 or verse 28, or both united, existed in isolated fashion in the tradition, or whether from the beginning they were joined to the controversy recorded in Ch. 2:23–26. Moreover, the formulation of verse 27 has been understood as an expression of universalism introduced by Mark or some early glossator, but inconceivable as an authentic word of Jesus.96
In the face of such problems and objections it is mandatory to understand the text in its Marcan intention. With the introduction to verse 27 (“and he was saying to them”) Mark indicates that the statement which follows has no direct relationship to the immediately preceding verses. This literary device recurs several times97 and in each instance it signals that only a fragment of the conversation or teaching which took place has been recorded. Jesus’ initial response to the Pharisees was broken off after verse 26. The pronouncement in Ch. 2:27 stands on its own as the conclusion to a larger discourse, of which only the most salient point has been preserved. The pronouncement was remembered and transmitted for its assertion that the Sabbath was instituted by God to benefit man. Its relevance to the question of verse 24 lay in the re-affirmation of the original intention of the Sabbath which the extensions of the Law in the Pharisaic tradition had obscured.98
There is no reason to deny the authenticity of verse 27 on the ground that it expresses a radical interpretation of the Sabbath unparalleled in Judaism and inappropriate to Jesus. There is twice recorded in the Mekilta, the Tannaitic commentary on Exodus, the dictum of Rabbi Simeon ben Menasya (ca. 180 A.D.) that “the Sabbath is delivered over for your sake, but you are not delivered over to the Sabbath.”99 Apart from its exegetical basis, the larger discussion in which this conclusion was reached is not recorded; like the pronouncement in Mk. 2:27, only a fragment of discourse is preserved. The Mekilta indicates that Rabbi Simeon was remembered especially because of this striking pronouncement,100 but no more than the statement and its ground in Scripture is given. The fact that this statement is twice recorded, and that no attempt is made to deny or challenge its validity, is sufficient indication that there is nothing specifically “un-Jewish” about Jesus’ pronouncement on the Sabbath. Verse 27 should be recognized, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, as an authentic pronouncement of Jesus expressing God’s purpose in establishing the seventh day as a period of joy and refreshment. The divine intention was in no way infringed by the plucking of heads of grain on the part of Jesus’ disciples. The pronouncement of verse 27 rounds off the pericope and constitutes its key point: the Sabbath was made for man’s enjoyment.101
On this understanding verse 28, with its reference to “the Son of Man,” should be interpreted after the analogy of Ch. 2:10.102 It represents the comment of Mark himself on the larger meaning of the total incident for the Christian Community. The function of the introductory particle103 is not to link verse 28 narrowly to verse 27, as if the pronouncement that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath is somehow being deduced from the more general principle that God instituted the Sabbath for the sake of man. Its function is rather to introduce a declaration which follows from the incident as a whole. Its significance can be expressed by translating “So then (in the light of verses 23–27) the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Reflection on Jesus’ act and word, through which he established the true intention of the Sabbath and exposed the weakness of a human system of fencing the Law with restrictions, revealed his sovereign authority over the Sabbath itself. With this word Mark drives home for his readers the theological point of the pericope. These things were written that they may understand Jesus’ true dignity: he is the Lord of the Sabbath.104