The Gospel of Mark/Chapter 2:18-28/Commentary

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 2:18-28 John’s Disciples and the Question of Fasting 2:18 “And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?’”: Observe that Matthew adds that the disciples of John come personally to Jesus with their question, and do not as the Pharisees, take their accusation to the disciples of Jesus (9:11). At this point in time John is in prison (4:12;11:2). This text demonstrates that some still remained with John and probably ministered to him in prison. This question comes from an entirely different source than the complaints of the Pharisees, a source, that, at first surprises us. As to why they come to Jesus, Mark says, “And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting” (2:18). “Which suggests that Matthew's feast was on one of the traditional Jewish fast days. Did their self-imposed empty stomachs gnaw at them while they observed Jesus and his disciples 'feasting'?”(Fowler pg. 166).

There is a lot at stake here: If the Pharisees could pit Jesus and John against each other, they could weaken both movements in the eye's of the people, while keeping their power hold on the people. “The disciples of John were astounded that in respect of fasting they should approach nearer to a sect whose adherents were enemies of Jesus” (Fowler pg. 167). According to Luke 18:12 the Pharisees fasted twice a week. It is said that the Jews observed these semi-weekly fasts because continuous fasting might be injurious. The days were the second and fifth. The 1

reason assigned for these days was the belief that Moses went up into Mount Sinai on the second day, and it was on the fifth day of the week that he came down.

“In contrast the only fast commanded in the O.T., is the one connected with the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:34)” (Manners Freeman pg. 420). Jesus and His disciples did not conform to common custom of religious people (Gr. Ex. pg. 152).

Since we also do not conform to the customs/traditions of the religious world, we need to be prepared with an answer (1 Peter 3:15). Consider how Jesus deals with this question. The disciples of John are not attempting to attack Jesus, but seeking to comprehend. Jesus now will use three illustrations as a means of explaining the situation. Why were both groups fasting and apparently at the same time, Mark does not say. John’s disciples may have been fasting because John had been arrested, and the Pharisees were probably observing one of the biweekly fasts.

2:19-20 “And Jesus said to them, ‘While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom do not fast, do they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day” The “attendants of the bridegroom” were the friends and acquaintances who participated in the marriage festivities. The people who are brought together on occasion of a marriage-feast are called this. They acted for the bridegroom by bringing the bride to him and making all the wedding arrangements. Clearly, the attendants of the bridegroom are Jesus’ disciples and Jesus is the bridegroom. “This illustration would perhaps appeal to the disciples of John with particular force, since John himself had called Jesus 'the Bridegroom' (John 3:29)'” (Fowler pg. 169). “Jesus thus calls attention to a very definite and accepted exception to the rule of fasting: must wedding guests fast? By universal custom the marriage week was to be marked by unmixed festivity, a period when fasting or mourning would be especially inappropriate” (Fowler pg. 168).

“Fasting is connected with mourning and is not to be a mechanical arrangement that is followed by merely on fixed days. When the heart is bowed down, fasting is a proper expression of its feelings. Who cares to eat at all, or more than a little, when he is greatly depressed?” (Lenski pg. 368). “A wedding, where mourning would be out of place, pictured the present phrase of ministry where fasting would not be fitting” (Foster pg. 438).

2

2:20 “But the days will come”: Jesus knew what awaited Him in the near future.

He would be taken away (by death). In addition, He would leave this earth (Acts 1:10-11), and then His disciples would fast (Acts 13:2-3; 14:23; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 11:27).

2:21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. An no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the win will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins” “Unshrunk” cloth would shrink when wet and tear loose from the old piece to which it had been attached. Such cloth would, when wet, tear a bigger hole than the hole it was used to cover. This would do more harm than good. “A person attempting to sew a piece of unshrunk cloth upon an old garment finds that the new patch, when it shrinks, will rend the old material” (Foster pg. 438). “The use of bottles made from the skins of animals is very ancient, and is still practiced in the East. The skins of goats and kids are commonly taken for this purpose, and are usually so fashioned as to retain the figure of the animal. In preparing the bottle, the head and feet are cut off, and the skin stripped whole from the body. The neck of the animal sometimes makes the neck of the bottle. They are smeared with grease to prevent leaking and evaporation. These skins large and small, are much better than earthen jars for the rough experiences of Oriental travel” (Manners Freeman pg. 344). “When the skin is green, it stretches by fermentation of the liquor and retains its integrity; but when it becomes old and dry, the fermentation of the new wine soon causes it to burst” (p. 345). When such wineskins are old they have lost their toughness and ability to stretch.

So fasting and His present program do not match. He does indicate that fasting is to have a place in the lives of His followers. Jesus clearly condemned fasting as a set religious performance to be observed by the calendar no matter what the circumstances to the individual or the needs of the soul.

Plucking Grain on the Sabbath 2:23 “And it came about that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain”

3

Modern Application Even some conservative Bible commentators assume that Jesus is teaching that certain laws of God maybe set aside when human life is in danger. Others use this text as proving that ethics are situational: "…left no doubt about Jesus' willingness to follow the radical decisions of love. He puts his stamp of approval on the translegality of David's.....exemplary act...at least the Christ of the Christian ethic leaves no doubt whatsoever that the ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else." (Situation Ethics. The New Morality. Joseph Fletcher, pp. 85-86). "The point of Jesus' argument here seems to be that human need takes priority over ceremonial law" (The Hard Sayings of Jesus. F.F. Bruce p. 33). "Our Lord seems to imply that under those unusual circumstances, David was justified in doing that, since the preservation of human life was even more important than strict observance of the ritual law" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Gleason L. Archer pp. 177-178).

Wrong Assumptions  Many people who encounter this section make an initial wrong assumption.

They assume that Jesus is trying to defend the actions of guilty men, i.e., His disciples. Yet this is the wrong starting point. Jesus will clearly say that His disciples are innocent (Mattthew 12:8). From that erroneous premise, people then reason that Jesus cites the example of David (12:3-4), to show that even though His disciples were violating the law of God, present difficult circumstances allowed such, just as they had allowed violation of law in David's time. Such a premise is horrible because it accuses Jesus of feeling that God’s laws are unworkable, that there isn’t enough wisdom behind the Scriptures to anticipate every situation.  The second wrong assumption is that Jesus is bringing up David and endorsing David’s actions in the Old Testament. He is not. Jesus plainly states that David did something unlawful (Mark 2:26).  The third wrong assumption is that Jesus is saying that “ceremonial law” can be set aside when the needs of man demand. Yet He isn’t dealing with a “ceremonial law”, He is dealing with the Sabbath Day, one of the Ten Commandments! Let’s be careful here. For if the Sabbath could be ignored when human needs demanded, then could the other commands, like the one against murder or adultery be set aside as well? Obviously not!

We already know that there is no situation which would justify dishonoring parents, committing adultery, or worshipping an idol.

4

 The last wrong assumption is that Jesus’ disciples were David and his men were on the verge of starvation. Neither text even hints at such.  Let’s make sure that we don’t come up with an interpretation that at the end of the day says that simply being hungry at the moment exempts one from the need to obey God! An interpretation of Mark 2:23-28 that leaves the impression that Jesus is saying that "unusual circumstances or difficult situations" justify the breaking of God's law, makes "suffering for righteousness" a meaningless expression. Too many passages exist which command the child of God to hold fast to what God has said regardless of the cost (Matthew 5:11; Revelation 2:10; Acts 14:22; 2 Timothy 3:12 “Persecution is inevitable for those who are determined to live really Christian lives” (Phillips Translation). If the Bible does teach situation ethics, then why did so many of its great heroes refuse to apply such an ethic? (A) Abraham-Genesis 22:16-18; Heb. 11:17-19. (B) Joseph-Genesis 39:9. (C) Daniel-Daniel 1:8; 6:10.

(D) His three friends-Daniel 3:16-18. (E) Stephen-Acts 7. (F) First Century Christians that died for refusing to abandon the faith, as in the following Scripture: Ceremonial Verses Moral Laws?

A good number of writers justify setting aside a ceremonial law, if a greater good is accomplished. But where does the Bible talk about ceremonial laws verses moral laws, and one law being more important than another? Rather, I find God punishing people severely for a violation of what many people would call ceremonial laws (Leviticus 10:1; 2 Samuel 6; 2 Chronicles 26:16ff). McGarvey is right when he notes, “The vast majority of commentators look upon this passage as teaching that necessity abrogates what they are pleased to call ceremonial laws of God. Disregarding so-called ceremonial laws of God is a very dangerous business, as is witnessed by the case of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6,7), and Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:16-23)” (The Fourfold Gospel p. 211). He then argues, “Jesus strenuously warned those who followed the example of the scribes and Pharisees in teaching such a doctrine (Matthew 5:17-20)”.

5

2:24 “And the Pharisees were saying to Him, ‘See here, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?’”

The Pharisees were not accusing the disciples of stealing, for the law of God permitted such “grazing “(Deut. 23:25), rather the actions of the disciples violated the Pharisees interpretation and tradition of what constituted forbidden "work" on the Sabbath. Plucking the ears of grain, was considered "reaping", rubbing them in the hands (Luke 6:1) was considered "sifting, grinding, and fanning."

Jesus would point out in Matthew 12: 5 that the command not to "work" on the Sabbath Day was never intended to be a prohibition against all activity. In Matthew 12:11-12, He will point out that "works of mercy and good will" were not inconsistent with the Sabbath command. The Pharisees made the mistake of holding the Sabbath Day in a purely negative point of view. They had forgotten that even the O.T. had taught that the Sabbath Day included some positive commands that demanded effort, action, and work. The following verse demonstrates that the Sabbath Day was also designed as a day of worship.

2:25-26 “And He said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he was in need and became hungry, he and his companions: how entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he gave it also to those who were with him?’”

Why David’s Case is Brought Forward He is not citing an example of human need out-weighing the law of God, for the actions of the disciples did not fit into that category. Remember, the disciples were doing nothing wrong (Matthew 12:7), they were only violating the Pharisees interpretation of what constituted work on the Sabbath.

2:26“Which was not lawful for him to eat”: Jesus clearly upholds the law of God, “What David did was unlawful” (Leviticus 24:9; 22:10-16; Ex. 29:33). There is no setting aside the command of God in this verse. What Jesus here cites is found in 1 Samuel 21:1. Before we move on, observe that in citing this event, Jesus is saying that the historical record of the Old Testament, including 1 Samuel is authentic. This event really happened, and it occurred exactly as the Old Testament records it.

6

The Pharisees and David’s Situation “Jewish tradition vindicated his conduct on the plea that 'danger to life' superseded the Sabbath-law; and hence, all laws connected with it “ (Fowler pp.

609-610). When Jesus said that David's actions were "unlawful", that should have reminded the Pharisees of their own complaint against His disciples (12:2). This example shows how hypocritical and inconsistent, the Pharisees were behaving.

They had let David off the hook for a clear violation of Scripture, and yet they condemned Jesus' disciples for behavior that didn't violate any Scripture. Jesus exposes their hypocrisy and demonstrates them to be men that are incompetent judges concerning what constitutes "unlawful" behavior in the sight of God. 2:27 “And He was saying to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath’” Obviously, Jesus is not teaching that one could ignore the Sabbath command with impunity or observe it only when one felt like it. Neither is He saying that the commands governing the Sabbath were too strict—for He was the one who gave them! Rather, the Sabbath as given and regulated in the Old Testament was not designed to be a burden to man, but rather a day of worship and rest. What had made the Sabbath unbearable, were all the human traditions, which the Pharisees had wrapped around the Sabbath command. Note, Jesus is not saying that people are more important that God’s commands, for God Himself punished people who violated them. Therefore, the right interpretation of the Sabbath Day must be the interpretation that still allowed people to “do good”, help their neighbor, heal and to “eat”.

Mark 2:28 “Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath”: Jesus is not saying that as God He can disregard His own laws or grant special exemptions to His friends. Rather, Jesus’ interpretation of what really was work on the Sabbath and what really was a violation of Scripture (like what David did), must be truth, because He is the one who gave the Sabbath command in the first place. Jesus here claims not only a pre-existence, but that it was He who gave the Sabbath command at Mount Sinai!

7

“Abiathar the High Priest” Mark 2:26 “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”: The name of the actual priest which David received the bread from was Ahimelech. Some argue that Mark that a lapse of memory and made a mistake, which of course would be a denial of his inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Lenski notes that such a view is hasty and serves only to relieve the commentator of making further investigation.

He notes that one solution is that the two names Ahimelech and Abiathar were borne by the father as well as the son. This is established by 2 Samuel 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16; 24:3,6,31, where Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar whereas in 1 Samuel 21 and 22 Abiathar is called the son of Ahimelech. Another solution is that the father and the son were both present when David came to Nob, and both gave the bread to David. Ahimelech, the father, soon died, and Abiathar, the son, became high priest, and Mark rightly notes that these events took place in his day.

Concluding Thought Another problem with situation ethics is that such a philosophy attempts to give wisdom to man that only belongs to God. When people argue that in a specific situation it might be all right lie, steal, or violate some other command of God, they always assume that the end will be good. The problem with this is that no man can really predict the future or all the future ramifications of a particular act.

It is one thing to invent a supposed situation ethic scenario where you can control the outcome, it is quite another thing to deal with real life. For example, with David and the showbread, the actual outcome of this event was that because David went to Nob, and one of Saul’s soldiers saw him and the priests give the showbread to him, that all the priests in this city were executed (1 Samuel 21:1319). Thus, the actual end was horrible! Man can’t argue that the end justifies the means, because besides violating Scripture, man can’t always predict what the real end is going to be.

8

9