Mark 2:18-3:6

The conflicts with Jesus that began in 2:1 now continue through three more incidents. The first is a conflict over fasting.

Fasting is a way of demonstrating repentance: an attitude of sorrow for sin, letting go of self-centeredness, and making oneself humbly available to God. Although the Old Testament only requires one day of fasting each year (for the Day of Atonement), at the time of Jesus it was typical for those serious about their faith to fast on two days every week. Indeed, fasting--along with strict observance of God's laws--was a way of preparing for the kingdom of God to come. The more faithfully people fasted and observed God's laws, the quicker would come God's reign on earth.

So, people were curious (and apparently concerned) when they noticed that the disciples of Jesus (unlike the followers of John the Baptist and the Pharisees) never fast. Don't they want to show proper repentance? Don't they want to quicken the coming of God's reign on earth?

Jesus' response is absolutely startling: You don't fast at a wedding, do you? Well the wedding party has begun and the bridegroom is here!

Jesus is implying that what they are waiting for--the kingdom of God--has already begun! He is implying that he is the Messiah (though he never says so explicitly) who brings about the party of God's kingdom. The casting out of demons, the healings, the pronouncements of forgiveness, and the inclusive table fellowship--all of these are enactments or signs that the kingdom of God has already been inaugurated on earth! (Is the kingdom of God fully present--come in all its glory? No, but it has still been initiated and can be seen--and its king is here.)

Jesus is saying a new time has begun. It is so different that old ways no longer apply--just as one would not put new wine (still fermenting) in an old, brittle wineskin; or use a new cloth to patch an old garment. This is the fundamental reason why Jesus acts so differently and with such outrageous authority. But Jesus also acknowledges that when he is taken away (not physically present on earth), fasting will once again make sense--because his followers will be waiting for his return and the completion of the kingdom of God on earth.

The next conflict is about Jesus' disciples plucking grain on the sabbath. The Pharisees accuse them of performing work--a violation of sabbath law. Sabbath law is no trivial matter--it is central to creation and God's character. The sabbath completed creation, and even God rested on the sabbath! The Ten Commandments--the heart of Moses' laws--require honoring the sabbath, and many other laws elaborate how to rest on this day. Observing the sabbath was crucial to the existence of God's people, to their faithfulness and to their identity. And, like fasting, keeping the sabbath was a way of quickening the coming of God's kingdom, because God's kingdom (in heaven) is a perpetual sabbath. So the concern of the Pharisees seems completely justified.

Jesus gives two arguments to allow for this work on the sabbath, and both have to do with a combination of responding to human need and to his personal authority. First, he gives as an example a time when King David, because he was hungry, violated the law. Jesus seems to be implying that satisfying hunger justifies work on the sabbath--particularly if one has the kind of authority David had. Second, Jesus argues that the intent of the sabbath is to serve human needs, not undermine those needs, and that he (the Son of Man) has the authority to determine how to best fulfill the intent of the sabbath.

To the Pharisees this must have sounded like an utterly outrageous claim! Like his pronouncement of forgiveness, he is presuming to speak for God (without consulting others) on matters of the greatest importance! Again he is implying (without actually saying it) that he is the Messiah--the one with more authority on earth than any other human being.

(As a side note, Jesus--or Mark--makes two historical mistakes in this story. First of all, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest when David took the bread of the Presence. Second, David did not share the bread with his companions--he was lying to Ahimelech and took the bread all for himself. For those who believe the Bible cannot contain any errors, this story presents a problem. Clearly Mark or Jesus has misremembered and misinterpreted the original story. Does that matter? Can Mark--or Jesus--be limited by his cultural knowledge?)

The final conflict involves a healing on the sabbath. The Pharisees are waiting to see if Jesus will heal on the sabbath so they can make a formal accusation against him. The law allows working on the sabbath if it's an emergency situation of life or death, but the man with the whithered hand can certainly wait a few more hours until the sabbath is over to be healed. But Jesus doesn't wait. He purposely heals on the sabbath, implying that doing good is not a violation of the intent of sabbath. Jesus is by no means setting aside the sabbath or the laws of Moses. He is interpreting how best to fulfill them in light of a new fact: the kingdom of God is dawning, and he is the one bringing it.

But from the standpoint of the Pharisees, he is simply a dangerous, deluded fanatic who has flagrantly disregarded one of the most important laws. So they seek to impose the death penalty (as Moses' law commands for violating the sabbath), but they don't have the authority to carry it out (the Pharisees were a religious renewal movement, not a judicial group). So they collude with the government of Herod Antipas, the regional king, to try to get him executed.