Disputing the Sabbath in Mark 2-3

Because Easter was earlier this year, the readings in 'ordinary time' begin with Mark 2.23-3.6 which is not always included when Easter is later.
At first, this appears to be a pair of incidents about Sabbath law and whether it still applies to followers of Jesus. In fact, it sits within Jewish debates about the interpretation and purpose of the Torah, and Jesus' authority to interpret it. So it is more about who Jesus is than what Torah teaches.
Come and join Ian and James as they explore these issues. Revd James Blandford-Baker is vicar of Histon and Impington, two villages just north of Cambridge. Revd Dr Ian Paul is Associate Minister of St Nic's, Nottingham, and writes the widely-read blog www.psephizo.com.
Full written commentary behind the discussion can be found on the blog each week.

[@pgdh]

James, you and me both ... I'm just about 6 weeks older :)

[@jamesblandford-baker2427]

Ah, splendid! Have you had your first thing saying 'senior' on it yet? My NT card has just come through…!

[@pgdh]

@@jamesblandford-baker2427 I've had my first free prescriptions, and received a nice "blood in stool" testing kit from the NHS. Sadly, the City of York wants me to wait another 7 years for a free bus pass...

[@gcameron8431]

James you don't look a day over 50! Lucky you 🙂

[@jamesblandford-baker2427]

Too kind!!

[@markcollinson527]

Thanks both of you! I think I'm looking for more on the significance of sabbath keeping for Mark's Grk speaking audience - was sabbath keeping new for Mark's community? Why should they keep the sabbath if they weren't Jews before they were Christians? Apart from the obvious (these stories reveal who Jesus is) why is Mark choosing stories of Jesus related to the sabbath when Christians didn't need to keep the sabbath but would meet on the Lord's day? And so, by way of application, what does it mean for Christians to 'keep a sabbath to the Lord' (Ex 20) when we know that Jesus is that Lord?

[@dianaverhulst3407]

I don't think I'd ever heard "The Kingdom of God is creation healed" -- and you worked off of the word "restored." Very interesting. I know you're doing the lectionary, but I'd be delighted to have you break down the three main points (at least I see three) in Luke 22:35-38; 35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied. [a] =Isaiah 53:12. Here I'm looking at Jesus's reversal in advising the disciples what to take with them NOW (as compared to before/nothing); what is meant by him advising they sell their coats and buy a sword (along with WHICH sword allusion is the correct one, here); and how he ties all of that into fulfilling 53:12 ["Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[a] and he will *divide the spoils with the strong*,[b] because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."] -- I have developed my thoughts about the allusion of the sword (made easier by the first half of His statement), and whether it factors into the theology of Isaiah's words, particularly how a sword *divides*. Or ... do they need two swords to keep him alive until he is crucified? Finally, Jesus's words "That's enough" have more than one translation attached to them in various Bible versions, e.g., “Enough of that!” Jesus replied. (CEV); “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (ESV). Knowing for certain what Jesus meant when he said "enough" fascinates me. I feel since he's never simple, it must be more than the obvious (be quiet).

[@Theologyforbreakfast]

James, you don’t look that old! :)

[@Psephizo]

Indeed he doesn't!

[@jamesblandford-baker2427]

You’re too kind!

[@pgdh]

A question and a couple of observations ... QUESTION: Doesn't "Lord of the Sabbath" carry even more weight? I think the phrase is calling for a maximal hermeneutic. Who created the Sabbath in Genesis 2:3? Who gave the law in Exodus 20? Mark is going to show us that Jesus is greater than Moses. This is only the second occurrence of "kurios" in Mark. I don't think this is too great a stretch, because Jesus is constantly being identified with YHWH throughout Mark. This is the mystery hidden in plain sight, the apocalypse. OBSERVATION In 3:6 The Pharisees are collaborating with The Herodians. They have already been outraged that Jesus eats with "tax collectors and sinners". Yet Herod is the arch-tax collector. Thus on this particular Sabbath they themselves are conspiring with "tax collectors and sinners" to destroy Jesus, while Jesus is restoring and healing. I think Mark wants us to see the irony and the hypocrisy. OBSERVATION 3:6 also removes any ambiguity we might feel about Jesus words in 2:17. Jesus clearly is not saying that the Pharisees and experts in the law are righteous (only that they think they are).

[@jamesblandford-baker2427]

That observation re Pharisees and Herodians is interesting…love the irony which of course is a feature of Mark generally (which John Sergeant has a short chapter on in his 'Lion Let Loose' book).