Mark 2:23-3:6

Mark 2:23-28

²³ One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. ²⁴ The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” ²⁵ And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? ²⁶ He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” ²⁷ Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath; ²⁸ so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Mark 3:1-6

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. ² They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. ³ And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” ⁴ Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. ⁵ He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. ⁶ The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

Mark 2:23-28 is a pronouncement story concerning plucking corn on the Sabbath.

²³ One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields; and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. Mark is setting the stage for the Sabbath controversy that is the focus of this segment. Mark portrays the incident as occurring between April and June, because that was when the corn was ripe. ²⁴ The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” The Pharisees take issue with the behavior of Jesus and his disciples, seeing it as an infringement on the prohibition against working (reaping) on the Sabbath. Their question is quite legitimate. Strict Sabbath observation was and is one of the great identifying features of Judaism. It safeguards a separate, sacred time away from the grinding duties of daily existence. Most importantly, however, the Jews are to observe strictly the Sabbath because God commanded that it be so. According to Exodus 34:21, reaping was against the Law. Sabbath observation is a symbol of the special, obedient relationship between God and the people of Israel. To acknowledge the Sabbath is to recognize the ruling presence of God in one's life. In verses 25-26, Jesus explains the behavior of Jesus and the disciples.[1] ²⁵ He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? ²⁶ He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest. Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, actually held office.  It would be easy to make this mistake, since Abiathar is more commonly associated with David.  David and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” Jesus calls on Jewish history and cites an incident from the life of David as precedence for his own disciples' behavior.  Further, this illustration from the Old Testament is in many ways strangely unrelated to the situation about which the Pharisees have concern. Jesus cites the life of David ‑‑ an indisputable source of authority. The story also differs from the account in I Samuel 21.  By using this Davidic example, Jesus shifts the focus from the injunction against doing work on the Sabbath to a concern for those "in need" and "hungry." No observant Jew would think of arguing that Sabbath observation should prohibit one from offering compassionate care and comfort to anyone in need. Despite the fact that the incident Jesus uses to defend the behavior of the disciples is not a Sabbath‑related event, it does offer an example of the companions of David receiving a special dispensation to override sacred law because of personal needs. In verse 27, Jesus has a stern, even harsh, warning for the Pharisees in terms of their interpretation of Sabbath law.

 ²⁷ Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath. Jesus offers a radical interpretation of the creation story, making it provocative for first century Judaism. The saying is an aphorism and memorable. Jesus extends the dominion given to human beings at creation over the Sabbath. It may even extend Sabbath to humanity, rather than just for the Jewish people. Jesus offers a radical departure from accepted Jewish theology. Jesus disregards the unique divine foundation undergirding the rite and rituals that define the Jewish Sabbath. The application to humanity hints at the need of humanity to express gratitude and exhibit trust. It hints that as important as are work, achievement, and ambition, they have relative value in the sense that we also need to express our gratitude for what we have and entrust our future into the hand of God. In verse 28, the episode concludes with an Christological focus. ²⁸ Therefore, the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” The Human One is lord of the Sabbath, and therefore humanizes Sabbath observance. Christians continued to safeguard the uniquely divine nature of the Sabbath itself. Common people do not hold control of the Sabbath in their hands. Rather the divine one ‑‑ the Son of Man ‑‑ legitimates the sacredness of that day. This claim took the responsibility for explaining their Sabbath‑day practices out of the hands of believers and put it into the lap of the one already confessed as divine.

Mark 3:1-6 is a story of a healing and a pronouncement on the Sabbath.[2] It reveals the attitude of Jesus toward the Sabbath. Structures of religious custom and tradition, originally designed to praise God and serve humanity, can become corrupted and cruel. Mark offers further evidence of the animosity that was growing between Jesus and the Pharisees. 

Again, he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. ² They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. Mark offers an aside to make it clear to us as readers the tension building between Jesus and the crowd. ³ And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” ⁴ Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” Nevertheless, they were silent. Mark further indicts the spiritual obtuseness of those gathered. For the Pharisees, abiding by the strict letter of the law concerning correct Sabbath observation was the fundamentalism shaping their attitude. ⁵ He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and God restored his hand. In the background of this story are echoes of the story in I Kings 13:4-6. Jeroboam stretches out his hand against the man of God at the altar and his hand withered. The king asks the man of God to have his hand restored, so the man of God prayed, and God restored the hand of the king to what it was before. Yet, we also have the stories of Exodus 13-15, where God is saving Israel from Egypt. Yet, before the crossing of the Sea of Reeds or the bread from heaven, we find the stubbornness and hardness of heart prevailing among the people. God commands Moses to stretch out his hand or staff, and deliverance comes. Here, Jesus commands the man to stretch out his withered hand and he receives healing. Miracles occur in spite of the stubbornness of the crowd.

For contemporary readers, such a story can raise the question of fundamentalism. The strict, literal, domineering Pharisee to whom Mark exposes us can feel like fundamentalists in religion we have known. Being a "fundamentalist" about some things can strengthen our centeredness and build up our sense of security for the marginality that is required of disciples of Jesus. Fundamentalism only becomes a problem when those rocks of certainty we have placed in our lives harden to immovability the compassion of our hearts. Love defines the fundamentalism of the actions and attitudes of Jesus. Jesus is a love fundamentalist. In everything he did, in everything he said, Jesus acted out this love fundamentalism. Love fundamentalism urged Jesus to heal the man's withered hand on a Sabbath.

Mark now draws his story to a close.  ⁶ The Pharisees, we now learn who “they” were, went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians, nowhere clearly identified by Mark, against him, how to destroy him. The dark cloud of death will hang over the rest of the ministry of Jesus.

The fundamentalism of love always offers one more chance, always goes one more mile, always trusts one more time, always believes one more possibility, always commits one more hour, always cries one more tear, always rejoices over one more soul.  Nevertheless, like all fundamentalisms, love fundamentalism depends on rigorous commitment, perpetual practice and overarching obedience in order for it to define the depth and direction of our lives truly. If something does not weave itself within the very warp and woof of our lives, it is not a fundamental part of our being. Jesus chose to weave the thread of love throughout every aspect of his existence. Love knit together the very fiber of his soul. Will we choose to do the same? 
If we continue on the path of viewing this segment as offering insight into fundamentalist approaches today, I hope we can all admit that we care about fundamental things. For me, I care about such fundamental things as truth, goodness, beauty, love, and friendship. I care about matters like imagination, story, honor, and compassion. Certain people in the religious environment of both Left and Right become fundamentalist and literalist in their way. Each has a form of political correctness that is off-putting to people like me. They listen for certain code words, adhere to certain authors, and are ready to pounce if another person crosses the line. The sin reveals itself in particular when one is ready to judge harshly those who have shared your worldview. Thus, in the politically correct atmosphere of our time, suppose an organization sympathetic to the progressive cause has an employee who missteps. The response may well be a call for a boycott of the entire organization. Like the Pharisees in this story, they are waiting and watching carefully to see some commit an infraction. Organizations and individuals will never reflect the purity for which such moralists seem to long. Such moralists are not fundamentalist about the right things. Such objectification of the other person, usually as a racist or misogynist is not helpful to reasonable discourse. Faith, hope, and love draw forth from our souls openness to the people and world around us in ways that encourage us to learn. As for me, I do not want to lead a life that leads to hardness of heart.

---

[1] This illustration from the Old Testament is in many ways strangely unrelated to the situation the Pharisees are concerned about. Some scholars are convinced, therefore, that verses 25-26 are added explanatory verses. If they are correct, and the original consisted of verses 23-24,27, it was actually a much stronger, more radical incident than the text we now have presents it. Underlying this theory of editorial easement of the startling declaration of verse 27 is the question of whether this entire confrontation scene was placed here to address a prickly issue existing within the first-century Palestinian church as it developed within a strongly Jewish milieu. Accordingly, this understanding of verses 23-28 does not view it as confrontation between Jesus, his disciples and the Pharisees so much as an explanatory text enabling the late first-century church to defend its view of the Sabbath to the Jewish hierarchy. Given the contrived feeling to the scene depicted in verses 23-24 -- a group of Pharisees happened along just as Jesus' disciples stopped their Sabbath-day stroll to pick ears of grain -- it is easy to see that scholars would wonder whether the disciples don't represent first-century Christians who had lately been "observed" by the Jewish authorities as not strictly following the traditional codes of the Jewish Sabbath -- Christians, who, in fact, had begun to worship on another day altogether.  The church community cushions the potentially combative nature of verse 27 by adding the further explanatory sentence found in verse 28.

[2] This is a healing story transformed into a Markan controversy event. Grammatical structure and telltale segues suggest that the story of Jesus' healing a man's withered hand has been woven together with Markan commentary to give this pericope an added purpose.