MARK 2:23-28 MEDITATION - Part 3 THE SABBATH - THE PHARISEES AND THE LAW
The Defence
Jesus meets them on their own ground. He, too, appeals to scripture to show that their accusation is groundless. He does this by drawing on the example of David. David was not an ordinary citizen. He was the anointed one of God and became Israel’s king from whom would come the Messiah and king of an everlasting kingdom (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Neither was Jesus an ordinary Jewish citizen, he too, was the anointed one of God, the long-awaited Messiah mentioned in Mark 1:2. Associating the authority of Jesus with that of David would have been sufficient to provoke the Pharisees. In the defence of Jesus there is a change of emphasis from the transgression of the disciples to the identity of Jesus himself.
David broke the law because he took the holy bread of the temple that had previously been offered to God and gave it to his men who were hungry (1 Samuel 21:3-7).
Now then, what do you have at hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.” And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread … So the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away. (1 Samuel 21:2-7)
Why did Jesus choose the example of something unlawful to justify the action of his disciples? There are similarities between the situation of Jesus and David, in both situations a basic need is involved. Jesus is pointing out an inconsistency in the attitude of the Pharisees. In effect he is saying: ‘You are willing to condemn my disciples for breaking your rules but not David for breaking the law’. This is inconsistent. If David is justified in his unlawful act then so are the disciples of Jesus. The inconsistency is even clearer when we see that David broke the law but the disciples of Jesus broke a man-made interpretation of the law, which equates plucking grain, the action of the disciples, with harvesting.
This becomes even more inconsistent when considering the spirit of the law, which was for the benefit of man, whereas their interpretation made the law a burden for man. The Pharisees were imprisoned in their legalism unable to reach out to humanity and human relationships that the law was meant to guard.
The Punch Line: the Identity of Jesus, Son of Man, Lord of the Sabbath
Now we come to the key revelation, that towards which everything has been leading, not only in this episode but in the whole of these first two chapters. The revelation of the identity of Jesus is the lesson behind all that is going on.
Here we have, in action, the new wine of the new covenant, represented by Jesus and his disciples struggling to be contained in old wineskins unable to contain it, represented by the Pharisees and other religious leaders. Tension was building up between the drawing to a close of the old covenant and the arrival of the new, the arrival of the King and the kingdom. Jesus has the authority to forgive sins, which only God has, he is the bride of Israel, who is God and now he is Son of man and the Lord of the sabbath, whom the Pharisees well knew is God himself.
‘Son of man’ was the preferred title of Jesus It is a clear reference to Daniel 7:13 which alludes to an everlasting kingdom, already implicit in the association with David. There is now a shift of focus from the transgression of the sabbath to the identity and authority of Jesus. He is the Lord of the sabbath.
In the New Testament the use of this title reaches a climax when Jesus stands before the high priest where the title ‘Son of God and ‘Son of Man’ are juxtaposed with a clear reference to Daniel 7:13:
“the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy (Matthew 26:63-65).
We also see here the title associated with the Lord of the sabbath. The Pharisees were in no doubt as to what Jesus was actually saying. They knew he was putting himself on a par with God himself. This whole situation was a time-bomb ready to explode.
--------------------
Return to Part 1 Mark 2:23-28 Meditation
Mark 2:23-28 Text and Questions
Go to Mark 3:1-6 Meditation
© copyright R W
bsgbiblestudyguide@gmail.com
