Breaking The Law To Fulfill It
Preaching
Your Faith Has Made You Well
Preaching The Miracles
Miracle Five
Breaking The Law To Fulfill It
The Text
One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come forward." 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. 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. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.
The conflict that began with the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum heats up in the rest of chapter 2. Jesus calls a tax collector (!) as a disciple, a decision that the Judean officials would consider suspicious (2:13-14). Two more incidents provoke the officials' ire. Jesus is seen eating with tax collectors and sinners, and his disciples do not fast (2:15-20). What kind of religious leader is Jesus anyway? Jesus proclaims that he has come to bring new wine, which needs new wine skins (2:22). Jesus' opponents presumably want to know what was wrong with the old wine. The conflict that was heating up throughout chapter 2 reaches full boil by the end of this pericope.
The lectionary committee has joined two stories for one Sunday. The two stories continue the conflict motif, and both deal with sabbath observance. Only the second story, the healing of the man's withered hand, is a miracle story.
Background
Despite concerted efforts by researchers over the course of at least two centuries, not much is known about the historical Pharisees. The Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that the three main groups of Judaism in the first century were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. We do not know much about how they functioned as a group. We are not certain whether they should be called a sect, a school, or some other designation. We do not know their socio-economic class or how they were organized. However they existed as a group, their main concern was ritual purity. They wanted to maintain Judean national identity under Roman rule. Without political power, they were reduced to maintaining their identity by obedience to food laws, ritual purity, and an emphasis on sabbath keeping and observance of religious festivals. They likely saw their efforts as an attempt to avoid assimilation into the Greco-Roman culture. They wanted to maintain the distinctiveness of Israelite identity in a society that either dismissed their claims, or was hostile to them. All we know of their interaction with Jesus is what we read in the New Testament. In the gospels, the Pharisees and Jesus are almost always in conflict, although in Luke some Pharisees warn Jesus to stay away from Herod (Luke 13:31). We know from the book of Acts that some Pharisees joined the early church (see, for example, Acts 15:5). The lack of historical information about the Pharisees is unfortunate. The New Testament writers portray them as caricatures. Because the gospel writers wanted to portray the Jesus movement as the true Israel, they put "spin" on the Pharisees' weaknesses. We can safely assume that the Pharisees were not monolithic. They likely were earnest and genuine in their attempts to be faithful to God in a hostile environment.
The commandment about sabbath observance is the one commandment among the Ten Commandments that is expressed very differently between the two versions. In the Exodus rendering of the Commandments, the rationale for the sabbath was that God had created the world in six days and rested on the sabbath. Observing the sabbath is a reminder of creation itself. In the Deuteronomy rendering, the rationale for sabbath observance is the exodus event. This rationale is, of course, narrower, but it encourages the people to remember the formation of their community and their special identity. In both versions, the sabbath rest extends to the whole household, even to animals. Even servants and slaves are to rest on the sabbath, making this commandment a kind of equalizer among family and social groups.
Sabbath observance is mentioned outside the Ten Commandments. Exodus 23:12 instructs sabbath observance and includes resident aliens. The purpose of sabbath observance here is relief and refreshment, a reminder that the sabbath instruction is a gift to humanity and to the animal world. Exodus 31:12-17 is more punitive. This passage does interpret the sabbath as a "sign between me and you throughout your generations" (v. 13) and speaks of the sense of remembrance and reflection as a rationale for sabbath observance. Moreover, it prescribes the death penalty for those who do work on the sabbath. Isaiah 58:13-14 offers spectacular promises to those who "refrain from trampling the sabbath." Those who consider the sabbath a "delight" will "take delight" in the Lord. Those who honor the sabbath will "ride upon the heights of the earth." This passage once again interprets the sabbath as a gift (see also Jeremiah 17:19-27).
The incident to which Jesus refers in the first of the stories occurs in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David is on the run from Saul and goes to Nob. David asks the priest, Ahimelech, for five loaves of bread. Ahimelech says that he will give the bread to David as long as his men have kept themselves from women. David assures him that such is the case and takes the bread. The account in Mark contains some inaccuracies. The priest's name in 1 Samuel is Ahimelech, not Abiathar. Ahimelech was Abiathar's father. The text in 1 Samuel does not say, but only implies, that David gave some of the bread to his men.
Literary Analysis
In the first of the two stories in this pericope, the physical setting is difficult to visualize. The way the narrator describes the scene almost makes it sound as if Jesus is over to the side talking to the Pharisees while the disciples are walking through the grain field. However Mark wants us to understand the scene, the Pharisees' sudden appearance and question seem abrupt. The focus of the passage is on the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees. We do not know the level of hostility in the voices of the Pharisees when they ask the question. We infer that they are troubled, but we do not know exactly how angry they are when they ask the question.
Jesus answers them by citing a narrative from 1 Samuel 21 about David eating the holy bread that only priests are allowed to eat. In the story from 1 Samuel, the priest, Ahimelech, seems to think that as long as the men have not recently had sex, it is permissible for them to eat the bread. Jesus' point in citing the story seems to be that in times of need, one can be flexible with strict rules. Jesus implies that the disciples are more than casually hungry. He describes David as "hungry and in need of food" (v. 25). Does this suggest that the disciples have already begun to make sacrifices in following Jesus? Is Jesus' point that the hunger and need of the disciples is so great, or that the Pharisees are too strict in their interpretation of the law on sabbath observance?
Jesus' second rationale for the behavior of the disciples is two pronouncements about the meaning of the sabbath, and his identity as "lord" of the sabbath. The first pronouncement is a statement in the form of a chiasm, "The sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the sabbath" (v. 27). Jesus' pronouncement picks up on the strands of Old Testament theology that interpret the sabbath as a gift (see above). The second pronouncement identifies Jesus as the Son of Man and as "lord of the sabbath." Curiously, the narrator does not tell us how the Pharisees react to Jesus' explanations of the behavior of the disciples. This lacuna puts the focus on Jesus' sayings. Perhaps the passage wants the reader to think that the power of Jesus' sayings is so strong that no rebuttal is possible.
In the second of the two stories, we are in no doubt about the attitude of the Pharisees. They are suspicious of Jesus. Instead of observing the sabbath, they are "observing" Jesus, waiting for him to give them ammunition. The Pharisees are the ones in the story who are on a quest. They want to find reason to accuse Jesus. As the story unfolds, they are successful in their quest.
This passage gives us a rare insight into Jesus' feelings. Jesus is angry at the Pharisees' hardness of heart. Jesus is passionate about his healing ministry, and cares deeply about people who suffer.
The narrator presents the man with the withered hand as the center of attention. The Pharisees notice him, and Jesus somehow knows that they have singled out this man with the withered hand. Jesus brings the man forward and asks the Pharisees a rhetorical question, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?" (v. 4). The silence of the Pharisees may mean that they have already made up their minds to oppose Jesus. In any case, they cannot respond to Jesus with authority as he did to them in the previous story. Jesus heals the man, but the healing has no positive effect on the Pharisees. The healing does not change their opinion, but may even stiffen their opposition. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees now has deadly implications. The ending of the story suggests that no chance for reconciliation exists. The conflict must play itself out.
Theological Reflection
These two texts raise the question of how we make ethical decisions. Obviously, the Pharisees and Jesus differ about what kinds of behavior represent a faithful response to God's grace and call. As stated above, we do not have access to what the historical Pharisees taught about adherence to the law (teachings) of the Old Testament. So, we have to contrast the position of the Pharisees as Mark presents it with the position of Jesus as Mark presents it. This is no easy task. We must discern these positions from the meager evidence of these two stories. The question of how we form ethical choices is a bigger issue than the sabbath observance question that dominates this text.
In the first story, the Pharisees claim that the behavior of the disciples (plucking heads of grain on the sabbath) is not lawful. Without trying to oversimplify their position, one can say that they seem to advocate in this instance an adherence to a particular interpretation of written law. Certain behaviors are permitted, and others are clearly not permitted. We do not know for sure if they would permit exceptions in cases of life or death, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, let's assume they would. This position seems rigid, but at least the options are clear. One can choose to obey or not to obey. As long as the behaviors are clearly defined, no ambiguity exists.
Jesus' position is more difficult to describe. His two rationales for the behavior of the disciples seem almost to conflict. His first rationale is that the Old Testament contains examples of people, including David, treating rules with some flexibility. Rules can be bent or broken in cases of human need, such as extreme hunger. Even in the 1 Samuel story, the priest required that the men refrain from sex before they ate the bread. The story does not advocate a moral free-for-all. Jesus' first pronouncement about the sabbath being made for humankind is consistent with this rationale. The sabbath is a gift. Jesus' second rationale is that because of his identity as Son of Man, he has more authority than the sabbath laws. He is "lord of the sabbath." The true way to find identity as the people of God is through him, not through the sabbath laws.
In the second story, Jesus more clearly advocates meeting people's needs as a correct ethical choice. Jesus does not say to meet people's need in contrast to observing the sabbath, but that meeting people's needs is a fulfillment of the sabbath requirement. Jesus overstates the case, because he will not be saving the man's life, and the Pharisees do not advocate that anyone should kill him. Nevertheless, Jesus proclaims that healing, making whole, is just the thing to do on a sabbath.
That leaves us with the question of how we know what we should and should not do. We might all affirm the principle of placing human need over rigid adherence to law. The question then becomes how we determine human need. How deep does the level of need have to be? What about when the needs of two or more people conflict? We appreciate the freedom from rigid adherence to the law, but the freedom Jesus gives us to make decisions can be dangerous. We are too subjective, too willing to justify our actions in most cases. The freedom Jesus gives us to make ethical decisions must be handled with care and spiritual maturity. Certainly, the Gospel of Mark, which calls the reader to take up the cross, does not give us license to do what we want. Nor, in the end, does Mark make human need the ultimate good. Certainly, Mark 9:43-48 suggests that bodily wholeness is not the ultimate good. For Mark, repentance because of the nearness of the dominion of God is the ultimate good.
Jesus plays a kingly role in this passage. He refers to himself as "lord (kurios) of the sabbath." He takes authority to interpret the law. He even compares himself to David (admittedly at a time before David was king). Jesus does not act as a king who abuses authority, but as one who acts to free his subjects from their bondage. He enables the disciples to assuage their hunger, and heals the man with the withered hand, so that he can work and take his place among the community of God's people.
Pastoral Reading
Our tendency as Christians is always to look down our noses at the Pharisees. We see them as the bad guys who keep messing with Jesus. They are the ones who just didn't get it. Before we become self-righteous, however, we should ask ourselves how much better we think we would do. Many Christians I know become just as furious as the Pharisees were, over certain matters. I pastor in Texas, a state where prayers can no longer be offered up before football games. In a recent Supreme Court case, many Christians were incensed at the possibility that the words "under God" might have been removed from the version of the Pledge of Allegiance recited in public schools. Many of the people in my churches over the last few years have been quite upset about both issues. Some denominations would be outraged if the youth proposed to hold a dance in the church's fellowship hall. If we can help our congregations understand that the Pharisees felt a similar anger, maybe we can get them to see Jesus' opponents with more ambiguity. They were more than just the crusty old religious leaders who refused to recognize who Jesus was when it was plain as day that he was the Messiah.
To the Pharisees, Jesus and his disciples treated the sabbath with disrespect. We don't know how hungry the disciples were in the first story. If it had been days since they ate, that's one thing. If breakfast was just wearing off, that's another. Exactly how hungry do you have to be before human need becomes more important than the sabbath restrictions? We all think that there are boundaries beyond which Christians just shouldn't go. Those boundaries are different for different people, but we all have them.
Even if the Pharisees could be persuaded that the man in the second story genuinely needed to be healed, they might have made the slippery slope argument. It starts with one healing on a sabbath, but where does it end? Once we start down the path of loosening our interpretations of moral directives, we raise the issue of where to stop. The slippery slope argument is not always persuasive or decisive, but it always is there to be reckoned with.
Most of us would agree that people of faith should not lie. Exodus 1 contains the story of Shiphrah and Puah, two Hebrew midwives. When the king of Egypt orders them to kill Hebrew boy babies to prevent the overpopulation of Hebrews, the two women lie to the Egyptian king. They claim that the Hebrew women give birth before they arrive, and so they have no opportunity to kill the Hebrew boy babies. Most of us would agree that lying to save the life of a baby was justified, but can we not justify nearly every lie we tell?
These issues are not easy to resolve, which is why Christian ethicists still have jobs. We are in a rather uncertain area, where honest Christians disagree about right and wrong, not only on the big issues, but also on smaller, everyday matters. What this passage contributes to our ethical discussions is that human need plays an important part in our decisions. Neither human need nor bodily wholeness is the ultimate good, but pursuit of them is one of the ways in which we live out the new situation effected by the coming near of the dominion of God.
Modern Christians have misunderstood Jesus' attitude toward the sabbath. We are grateful to be free from rigid, strict enforcement of "blue laws" that kept stores and theaters closed on Sunday. Yet we have not replaced this rigid structure with a real understanding of sabbath as a time of rest, a time when we reflect on our relationship to God and remember who we are. The sabbath is not just a time to refrain from certain actions; it is a time to renew, restore, and heal. We have not recovered the understanding from the Old Testament and from this passage that the sabbath is a gift.
Preaching Strategies
This passage provides an excellent opportunity for preachers to help their congregations interpret the place of the law in Christian faith. Many Christians lack a spiritually healthy understanding of the law. The two extremes of misunderstanding are antinomianism on the one side and legalism on the other. Antinomianism often takes the form of believing that we are so free from the law that it has no value for us. Legalism wants to prescribe exactly what Christians should and should not do. Concerning the sabbath laws, antinomianism is the impulse not to treat Sunday (the Christian substitute for the Saturday sabbath) as any different from any other day. Legalism can take the form of "blue laws" that codify exactly what can and cannot be sold, or done, on Sunday.
The preacher's task is to enable the congregation to see the law as instruction or teaching (the Hebrew term "torah" can mean all three). Some passages from the Psalms may be helpful here. Psalm 19 extols the law as "reviving the soul," and "rejoicing the heart." Psalm 119 considers the Lord's ordinances to be a motivation to praise (v. 7) and the decrees to be a delight (v. 14). This sense of rejoicing in the law is foreign to most of us in the church. One goal of preaching from this passage could be to enable the congregation to recapture this sense of delight and praise for the law. The law is life giving, just as eating and healing are. When Jesus' disciples eat the grain and when Jesus heals the man's hand, life is affirmed.
The passage invites the preacher to focus specifically on the sabbath commandment. The preacher can instruct on how the sabbath commandment is a gift, how it is life giving and a delight. By careful observance of our time, and by setting aside time for remembering our relationship to God, we grow spiritually, a gift from God.
Breaking The Law To Fulfill It
The Text
One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come forward." 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. 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. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.
The conflict that began with the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum heats up in the rest of chapter 2. Jesus calls a tax collector (!) as a disciple, a decision that the Judean officials would consider suspicious (2:13-14). Two more incidents provoke the officials' ire. Jesus is seen eating with tax collectors and sinners, and his disciples do not fast (2:15-20). What kind of religious leader is Jesus anyway? Jesus proclaims that he has come to bring new wine, which needs new wine skins (2:22). Jesus' opponents presumably want to know what was wrong with the old wine. The conflict that was heating up throughout chapter 2 reaches full boil by the end of this pericope.
The lectionary committee has joined two stories for one Sunday. The two stories continue the conflict motif, and both deal with sabbath observance. Only the second story, the healing of the man's withered hand, is a miracle story.
Background
Despite concerted efforts by researchers over the course of at least two centuries, not much is known about the historical Pharisees. The Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that the three main groups of Judaism in the first century were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. We do not know much about how they functioned as a group. We are not certain whether they should be called a sect, a school, or some other designation. We do not know their socio-economic class or how they were organized. However they existed as a group, their main concern was ritual purity. They wanted to maintain Judean national identity under Roman rule. Without political power, they were reduced to maintaining their identity by obedience to food laws, ritual purity, and an emphasis on sabbath keeping and observance of religious festivals. They likely saw their efforts as an attempt to avoid assimilation into the Greco-Roman culture. They wanted to maintain the distinctiveness of Israelite identity in a society that either dismissed their claims, or was hostile to them. All we know of their interaction with Jesus is what we read in the New Testament. In the gospels, the Pharisees and Jesus are almost always in conflict, although in Luke some Pharisees warn Jesus to stay away from Herod (Luke 13:31). We know from the book of Acts that some Pharisees joined the early church (see, for example, Acts 15:5). The lack of historical information about the Pharisees is unfortunate. The New Testament writers portray them as caricatures. Because the gospel writers wanted to portray the Jesus movement as the true Israel, they put "spin" on the Pharisees' weaknesses. We can safely assume that the Pharisees were not monolithic. They likely were earnest and genuine in their attempts to be faithful to God in a hostile environment.
The commandment about sabbath observance is the one commandment among the Ten Commandments that is expressed very differently between the two versions. In the Exodus rendering of the Commandments, the rationale for the sabbath was that God had created the world in six days and rested on the sabbath. Observing the sabbath is a reminder of creation itself. In the Deuteronomy rendering, the rationale for sabbath observance is the exodus event. This rationale is, of course, narrower, but it encourages the people to remember the formation of their community and their special identity. In both versions, the sabbath rest extends to the whole household, even to animals. Even servants and slaves are to rest on the sabbath, making this commandment a kind of equalizer among family and social groups.
Sabbath observance is mentioned outside the Ten Commandments. Exodus 23:12 instructs sabbath observance and includes resident aliens. The purpose of sabbath observance here is relief and refreshment, a reminder that the sabbath instruction is a gift to humanity and to the animal world. Exodus 31:12-17 is more punitive. This passage does interpret the sabbath as a "sign between me and you throughout your generations" (v. 13) and speaks of the sense of remembrance and reflection as a rationale for sabbath observance. Moreover, it prescribes the death penalty for those who do work on the sabbath. Isaiah 58:13-14 offers spectacular promises to those who "refrain from trampling the sabbath." Those who consider the sabbath a "delight" will "take delight" in the Lord. Those who honor the sabbath will "ride upon the heights of the earth." This passage once again interprets the sabbath as a gift (see also Jeremiah 17:19-27).
The incident to which Jesus refers in the first of the stories occurs in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David is on the run from Saul and goes to Nob. David asks the priest, Ahimelech, for five loaves of bread. Ahimelech says that he will give the bread to David as long as his men have kept themselves from women. David assures him that such is the case and takes the bread. The account in Mark contains some inaccuracies. The priest's name in 1 Samuel is Ahimelech, not Abiathar. Ahimelech was Abiathar's father. The text in 1 Samuel does not say, but only implies, that David gave some of the bread to his men.
Literary Analysis
In the first of the two stories in this pericope, the physical setting is difficult to visualize. The way the narrator describes the scene almost makes it sound as if Jesus is over to the side talking to the Pharisees while the disciples are walking through the grain field. However Mark wants us to understand the scene, the Pharisees' sudden appearance and question seem abrupt. The focus of the passage is on the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees. We do not know the level of hostility in the voices of the Pharisees when they ask the question. We infer that they are troubled, but we do not know exactly how angry they are when they ask the question.
Jesus answers them by citing a narrative from 1 Samuel 21 about David eating the holy bread that only priests are allowed to eat. In the story from 1 Samuel, the priest, Ahimelech, seems to think that as long as the men have not recently had sex, it is permissible for them to eat the bread. Jesus' point in citing the story seems to be that in times of need, one can be flexible with strict rules. Jesus implies that the disciples are more than casually hungry. He describes David as "hungry and in need of food" (v. 25). Does this suggest that the disciples have already begun to make sacrifices in following Jesus? Is Jesus' point that the hunger and need of the disciples is so great, or that the Pharisees are too strict in their interpretation of the law on sabbath observance?
Jesus' second rationale for the behavior of the disciples is two pronouncements about the meaning of the sabbath, and his identity as "lord" of the sabbath. The first pronouncement is a statement in the form of a chiasm, "The sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the sabbath" (v. 27). Jesus' pronouncement picks up on the strands of Old Testament theology that interpret the sabbath as a gift (see above). The second pronouncement identifies Jesus as the Son of Man and as "lord of the sabbath." Curiously, the narrator does not tell us how the Pharisees react to Jesus' explanations of the behavior of the disciples. This lacuna puts the focus on Jesus' sayings. Perhaps the passage wants the reader to think that the power of Jesus' sayings is so strong that no rebuttal is possible.
In the second of the two stories, we are in no doubt about the attitude of the Pharisees. They are suspicious of Jesus. Instead of observing the sabbath, they are "observing" Jesus, waiting for him to give them ammunition. The Pharisees are the ones in the story who are on a quest. They want to find reason to accuse Jesus. As the story unfolds, they are successful in their quest.
This passage gives us a rare insight into Jesus' feelings. Jesus is angry at the Pharisees' hardness of heart. Jesus is passionate about his healing ministry, and cares deeply about people who suffer.
The narrator presents the man with the withered hand as the center of attention. The Pharisees notice him, and Jesus somehow knows that they have singled out this man with the withered hand. Jesus brings the man forward and asks the Pharisees a rhetorical question, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?" (v. 4). The silence of the Pharisees may mean that they have already made up their minds to oppose Jesus. In any case, they cannot respond to Jesus with authority as he did to them in the previous story. Jesus heals the man, but the healing has no positive effect on the Pharisees. The healing does not change their opinion, but may even stiffen their opposition. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees now has deadly implications. The ending of the story suggests that no chance for reconciliation exists. The conflict must play itself out.
Theological Reflection
These two texts raise the question of how we make ethical decisions. Obviously, the Pharisees and Jesus differ about what kinds of behavior represent a faithful response to God's grace and call. As stated above, we do not have access to what the historical Pharisees taught about adherence to the law (teachings) of the Old Testament. So, we have to contrast the position of the Pharisees as Mark presents it with the position of Jesus as Mark presents it. This is no easy task. We must discern these positions from the meager evidence of these two stories. The question of how we form ethical choices is a bigger issue than the sabbath observance question that dominates this text.
In the first story, the Pharisees claim that the behavior of the disciples (plucking heads of grain on the sabbath) is not lawful. Without trying to oversimplify their position, one can say that they seem to advocate in this instance an adherence to a particular interpretation of written law. Certain behaviors are permitted, and others are clearly not permitted. We do not know for sure if they would permit exceptions in cases of life or death, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, let's assume they would. This position seems rigid, but at least the options are clear. One can choose to obey or not to obey. As long as the behaviors are clearly defined, no ambiguity exists.
Jesus' position is more difficult to describe. His two rationales for the behavior of the disciples seem almost to conflict. His first rationale is that the Old Testament contains examples of people, including David, treating rules with some flexibility. Rules can be bent or broken in cases of human need, such as extreme hunger. Even in the 1 Samuel story, the priest required that the men refrain from sex before they ate the bread. The story does not advocate a moral free-for-all. Jesus' first pronouncement about the sabbath being made for humankind is consistent with this rationale. The sabbath is a gift. Jesus' second rationale is that because of his identity as Son of Man, he has more authority than the sabbath laws. He is "lord of the sabbath." The true way to find identity as the people of God is through him, not through the sabbath laws.
In the second story, Jesus more clearly advocates meeting people's needs as a correct ethical choice. Jesus does not say to meet people's need in contrast to observing the sabbath, but that meeting people's needs is a fulfillment of the sabbath requirement. Jesus overstates the case, because he will not be saving the man's life, and the Pharisees do not advocate that anyone should kill him. Nevertheless, Jesus proclaims that healing, making whole, is just the thing to do on a sabbath.
That leaves us with the question of how we know what we should and should not do. We might all affirm the principle of placing human need over rigid adherence to law. The question then becomes how we determine human need. How deep does the level of need have to be? What about when the needs of two or more people conflict? We appreciate the freedom from rigid adherence to the law, but the freedom Jesus gives us to make decisions can be dangerous. We are too subjective, too willing to justify our actions in most cases. The freedom Jesus gives us to make ethical decisions must be handled with care and spiritual maturity. Certainly, the Gospel of Mark, which calls the reader to take up the cross, does not give us license to do what we want. Nor, in the end, does Mark make human need the ultimate good. Certainly, Mark 9:43-48 suggests that bodily wholeness is not the ultimate good. For Mark, repentance because of the nearness of the dominion of God is the ultimate good.
Jesus plays a kingly role in this passage. He refers to himself as "lord (kurios) of the sabbath." He takes authority to interpret the law. He even compares himself to David (admittedly at a time before David was king). Jesus does not act as a king who abuses authority, but as one who acts to free his subjects from their bondage. He enables the disciples to assuage their hunger, and heals the man with the withered hand, so that he can work and take his place among the community of God's people.
Pastoral Reading
Our tendency as Christians is always to look down our noses at the Pharisees. We see them as the bad guys who keep messing with Jesus. They are the ones who just didn't get it. Before we become self-righteous, however, we should ask ourselves how much better we think we would do. Many Christians I know become just as furious as the Pharisees were, over certain matters. I pastor in Texas, a state where prayers can no longer be offered up before football games. In a recent Supreme Court case, many Christians were incensed at the possibility that the words "under God" might have been removed from the version of the Pledge of Allegiance recited in public schools. Many of the people in my churches over the last few years have been quite upset about both issues. Some denominations would be outraged if the youth proposed to hold a dance in the church's fellowship hall. If we can help our congregations understand that the Pharisees felt a similar anger, maybe we can get them to see Jesus' opponents with more ambiguity. They were more than just the crusty old religious leaders who refused to recognize who Jesus was when it was plain as day that he was the Messiah.
To the Pharisees, Jesus and his disciples treated the sabbath with disrespect. We don't know how hungry the disciples were in the first story. If it had been days since they ate, that's one thing. If breakfast was just wearing off, that's another. Exactly how hungry do you have to be before human need becomes more important than the sabbath restrictions? We all think that there are boundaries beyond which Christians just shouldn't go. Those boundaries are different for different people, but we all have them.
Even if the Pharisees could be persuaded that the man in the second story genuinely needed to be healed, they might have made the slippery slope argument. It starts with one healing on a sabbath, but where does it end? Once we start down the path of loosening our interpretations of moral directives, we raise the issue of where to stop. The slippery slope argument is not always persuasive or decisive, but it always is there to be reckoned with.
Most of us would agree that people of faith should not lie. Exodus 1 contains the story of Shiphrah and Puah, two Hebrew midwives. When the king of Egypt orders them to kill Hebrew boy babies to prevent the overpopulation of Hebrews, the two women lie to the Egyptian king. They claim that the Hebrew women give birth before they arrive, and so they have no opportunity to kill the Hebrew boy babies. Most of us would agree that lying to save the life of a baby was justified, but can we not justify nearly every lie we tell?
These issues are not easy to resolve, which is why Christian ethicists still have jobs. We are in a rather uncertain area, where honest Christians disagree about right and wrong, not only on the big issues, but also on smaller, everyday matters. What this passage contributes to our ethical discussions is that human need plays an important part in our decisions. Neither human need nor bodily wholeness is the ultimate good, but pursuit of them is one of the ways in which we live out the new situation effected by the coming near of the dominion of God.
Modern Christians have misunderstood Jesus' attitude toward the sabbath. We are grateful to be free from rigid, strict enforcement of "blue laws" that kept stores and theaters closed on Sunday. Yet we have not replaced this rigid structure with a real understanding of sabbath as a time of rest, a time when we reflect on our relationship to God and remember who we are. The sabbath is not just a time to refrain from certain actions; it is a time to renew, restore, and heal. We have not recovered the understanding from the Old Testament and from this passage that the sabbath is a gift.
Preaching Strategies
This passage provides an excellent opportunity for preachers to help their congregations interpret the place of the law in Christian faith. Many Christians lack a spiritually healthy understanding of the law. The two extremes of misunderstanding are antinomianism on the one side and legalism on the other. Antinomianism often takes the form of believing that we are so free from the law that it has no value for us. Legalism wants to prescribe exactly what Christians should and should not do. Concerning the sabbath laws, antinomianism is the impulse not to treat Sunday (the Christian substitute for the Saturday sabbath) as any different from any other day. Legalism can take the form of "blue laws" that codify exactly what can and cannot be sold, or done, on Sunday.
The preacher's task is to enable the congregation to see the law as instruction or teaching (the Hebrew term "torah" can mean all three). Some passages from the Psalms may be helpful here. Psalm 19 extols the law as "reviving the soul," and "rejoicing the heart." Psalm 119 considers the Lord's ordinances to be a motivation to praise (v. 7) and the decrees to be a delight (v. 14). This sense of rejoicing in the law is foreign to most of us in the church. One goal of preaching from this passage could be to enable the congregation to recapture this sense of delight and praise for the law. The law is life giving, just as eating and healing are. When Jesus' disciples eat the grain and when Jesus heals the man's hand, life is affirmed.
The passage invites the preacher to focus specifically on the sabbath commandment. The preacher can instruct on how the sabbath commandment is a gift, how it is life giving and a delight. By careful observance of our time, and by setting aside time for remembering our relationship to God, we grow spiritually, a gift from God.
