Dirty Dozen - Mark 3:13-19

13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve[a] that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. 16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Mark 3:13-19 NIV)
a. Some manuscripts twelve—designating them apostles— 

This passage gives the story of Jesus making a special inner group of twelve.  The Arabic version adds him giving the twelve the title Apostles which scholars believe was a later addition taken from Luke 6:13.  The title "Apostle" comes from the Greek word, ἀποστόλους (apostolous), which refers to a delegate taking the place of the person sending them.  As an adjective it describes someone as having been dispatched or set forth.  Although the giving of this title was probably not part of the original writing of the community of Mark it does encapsulate the purpose of the group as set out in the text, delegates who would spread Jesus' message with his authority

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/3-14.htm

So, what was the message that these twelve had been selected to learn more closely and be sent out to preach with Jesus' authority?  This is a good point at which to review what the writers of the Gospel of Mark have portrayed as the message of Jesus' so far.  As we have observed in our study of the Gospel to this point, Jesus is given as starting his ministry preaching a continuation of the message of John the Baptist, telling the people to "repent", change their thinking and direction in terms of social justice; fairness, sharing with others, and caring for the disadvantaged.  As the Gospel progresses the message includes radical inclusion based on a vision of a primarily loving and compassionate God where all are welcome and equal participants in the people of God and no one is excluded or sanctioned.  We saw this in the stories of Jesus' acceptance and elevation of the marginalized and the "impure", the leper, the cripple, the tax collector.

The other aspect of Jesus' message as presented by the community of Mark that we have been exploring in a number of the latest posts is an elevation of principle and compassion over legalism.  Strict conformity to the law as duty is made less important than imitation of the character of God in terms of compassion and mercy, and in the consequence of one's actions in terms of the good or harm that it does to others.

These teachings are an important message to the writer/s of Mark.  It is the primary message of the Gospel and one they felt important enough that they have Jesus pick twelve special followers who would, "be with him", so that they could learn and live this message to the point that they could preach it as his proxy. Note that this teaching has no mention of an afterlife, Jesus death, or a reward system that excludes those not ascribing to the correct dogma in the next life.

Many denominations and Christian movements have dismissed the centrality and primacy of this teaching in favour of a theology centred on Jesus death and an afterlife.  It constantly amazes me that a subject that the Gospel writers have him discuss so briefly (and to this point not at all) is given primacy over teachings that are continually repeated.  This is particularly puzzling among those who literalize Jesus as God in human form.  How can what is supposed to be the best record of what God had to say while among us in the flesh less important than a theology built after his death based on a minor part of his teaching?  

Making substitutionary atonement the primary purpose of Jesus dismisses the importance of the message and teaching of Jesus given by the Gospel communities and implies that Jesus time on earth was just a filler until his death and what he had to say and what he did are not of central importance.  Jesus' death is not the lesson of the Gospel stories.  Jesus' death and resurrection is the ultimate metaphorical validation of Jesus teaching and actions.  It was also a literary device in order to frame the teachings of Jesus as an extension and the culmination of the Hebrew Scriptural tradition.  It was a way to validate a different approach at odds with the Temple sacrifice and purity law system of the time.  The purpose of framing the story of Jesus death and resurrection in sacrificial terms was to legitimize and justify a teaching that sought to do away with the old wine skin and garment of the Law and the sacrificial atonement system not to further entrench it in a different format.   It was the teaching that was the point, not the metaphorized history that sought to legitimize it.

With that rant finished, I would like to leave you with a funny meme I found while looking for pictures relevant to this passage.

Jesus - Rock Star: Mark 3:7-12

7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake, and a large crowd from Galilee followed. 8 When they heard about all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. 9 Because of the crowd he told his disciples to have a small boat ready for him, to keep the people from crowding him. 10 For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him. 11 Whenever the impure spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” 12 But he gave them strict orders not to tell others about him. (Mark 3:7-12 NIV)

 This passage reminds me of an experience I had at my first rock concert when I was in University.  My girlfriend at the time had got us tickets and made arrangements for us to go to see a major teen heart throb of the time in concert.  I believe it was Corey Hart, or someone similar in that genre (I obviously wasn't that into the artist himself).  But, what I do recall clearly was watching the young women crowd and press as close to the stage as they could to get close to their idol.  There was quite a crowd and the centre section before the stage was all standing area without seating.  In front of the stage was temporary crowd fencing to keep the audience from getting too close to the stage.  As I mentioned earlier, the crowd was pressing to get as close to the performer as possible, to the point that people were getting crushed against the fencing barrier.  Concert security was on the other side of the fence watching over the people being pressed against it from the other side.  If they saw that someone was in distress from being pushed against the fence by the crowd, they would lift the person over the fence beyond the press.  The person had usually swooned or fainted and a security person would sling the person over their shoulder to carry them off to a recovery area.  This was such a common part of this artist's performances that the security personnel charged with this task had a message about remaining calm printed upside down on the back of their 'T' shirts for the person slung over their back to read as they were carried to safety.


Now as I mentioned earlier, I was not a fan of this particular artist, and I doubt that any musicologist would characterize his music as anything special or significant.  However, his popularity and the fervor of his followers certainly lends legitimacy to his status as a musician.  This is where I see the parallel with this story of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.  As we have explored in earlier posts, the community of Mark would have had a legitimacy issue with more mainstream Jewish sects around the source of their authority in deciding not to practice many of the purity laws or making their practice dependent on their vision of justice and mercy.  The mainstream sects claimed the authority of traditional religious institution with a rigorous system of Rabbinical certification that ensured that each new Rabbi with "Semicha", authority to interpret the Law, was following "orthodoxy", teaching what had been handed down and only adding what was in line with those previously vetted and accepted teachings.

One of the ways the community of Mark establishes Jesus' legitimacy, beyond the favour God shows him in enabling him to perform healings, is the overwhelming popularity they portray him as having with the people.

At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite. The word populism comes from the Latin word for "people," populus. 

Definitions of populism.

We have heard the term populism used a lot recently by political commentators in regard to American campaign movements.  Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have been said to tie into a public sentiment against what is perceived as an economic and political elite who have furthered their own interests at the expense of the majority.

This is not a new political philosophy and has its roots both in the Athenian city state and later in the Roman Empire.  As such, it would have been well known to the community of the Gospel of Mark.

http://studymoose.com/ancient-greek-and-ancient-roman-democracy-essay

Given the circumstances of the time, it is understandable why this philosophy would be credible and appealing to the first century Jews of the Gospels.  Their religious/political elites had let them down.  Their homeland was conquered and occupied by a foreign power.  The policy of the Priesthood had been to collaborate with the Roman occupiers in order to get them to spare the Temple and its practice.  This led them to endorse the heavy taxation of the people by the Roman Empire on top of the expected tithes and Temple taxes.  In parallel to this, the Jewish elite's strategy for the Roman occupation was to win back God's favour through stricter holiness practices so that God would fulfill the Covenant and return their sovereignty.  This further marginalized the poor and others unable to comply.  By the time of the Gospel, these policies had failed spectacularly with the Roman destruction of the Temple.

As a result, the people were disenchanted with the elites and the traditional institutions of Judaism.  They were open to a more egalitarian interpretation of their faith that drew from the anti-establishment traditions of the Prophets that called upon justice and mercy for the marginalized.  

What's Good Over What's Lawful: Mark 3:1-6

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. ² Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. ³ Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
⁴ Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
⁵ He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. ⁶ Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. (Mark 3:1-6 NIV)

In an article at Patheos.com, Morgan Guyton describes the disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees as a difference between consequentialist and deontological ethics. In consequentialist ethics, you decide what to do on the basis of what will cause the most good and least harm.  In deontological ethics, you find an authority figure to give you a duty to obey.  The more unreasonable the duty, the more "ethical" and faithful the observance.

People with deontological ethics only feel assured that they are submitting fully to an authority if they perform duties that make no sense from a consequentialist perspective. The duty must be opaque to be fully deontological. Deontological ethics says that unless I do what makes no sense to me, then my sense is my authority rather than the Bible.

In regards to this difference in ethics in Jesus interaction with the Pharisees, Guyton explains:

For the Pharisees, the Sabbath is an opaque duty. The test of whether you’re honoring the Sabbath or not is whether you avoid doing even virtuous deeds for the sake of honoring God. When Jesus puts the Sabbath in terms of “doing good or doing harm,” he’s making the Sabbath consequentialist rather than deontological. The Pharisees would say that Jesus is offering a false choice. The cessation of work on the Sabbath is a duty. Making the Sabbath pragmatic destroys the deontological authority of the law.

Jesus makes his consequentialist stance explicit when he says, “The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath, and the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). So to me, respecting Jesus’ lordship as the chief interpreter of scripture means reading it consequentially rather than deontologically.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/05/12/why-were-ethically-incomprehensible-to-each-other/

A further explanation of deontological and consequentialist ethics can be found in Joe Robinson's article at the link below.

http://www.joerobinson.net/2015/08/03/consequentialism-vs-deontology-vs-virtue-ethics/

I have to agree with Guyton in his quote above.  Jesus calls us to treat Scripture and I would say all social rules and practices in a consequentialist rather than a a deontological manner.  This is consistent with the Gospel writers' presentation throughout the works.  Jesus is never shown as giving us more autocratic rules, but instead uses open ended devices like parables to encourage us to look at rules and customs from a different perspective. In another blog, Is Following Jesus About Turning Off Your Brain?, I argued that Jesus could be held up as the poster child for free thinking and critical reasoning.  Both are required when you approach religious rules and laws from a consequentialist stand point.

Following an authoritarian interpretation of rules and laws is in some ways much easier.  It allows us to let authority and social custom make our decisions for us and relieves us of accountability in our moral reasoning.  However, as we have seen in history, "I was just following orders", is not an acceptable stance and it applies to blindly following social custom and Religious Law equally.

There is another strain of ethics mentioned in the picture I've posted above, virtue ethics.  This branch focuses on character as a guide in moral decision making and outlook.   I would contend that this is also a major factor in Jesus' teaching on how and when to apply religious law and social rules.  Jesus, in his parables invites us to share his vision of God, one where God is primarily loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving, and to view life including religious law through that lens.

This way of living rather than relying on religious and moral laws is difficult for us.  Besides asking us to think and feel our response, it calls us to risk "getting it wrong", in a way where we alone are accountable.  I would argue that the possibility of making the wrong choice and of acknowledging it is an integral part of the Christian process.  It is only in not viewing ourselves as blameless and not making that as our goal that we experience the mercy and forgiveness of God and of ourselves.  And it is this experience that allows us to have the empathy to better extend the same to those around us.  If our goal is to be always technically and legally correct and in the right then we have no need for God and little empathy for those who do not measure up to the legalism we impose on ourselves.


Now that I have explored what this passage means to me, let's move back to the objective of this blog series, to try to understand what these stories meant to the writers and their community.  As we have explored in earlier posts, the community of the Gospel of Mark would have found themselves questioned and perhaps censured by the more mainstream Jewish sects in their wider community for failing to follow many of the purity laws or for failing to interpret or practice them in the manner prescribed by Rabbinical authority and tradition.  After all, they practiced the law as instructed by Rabbis who had been "certified" and granted Semicha, the authority to interpret the law and make legal judgement, through a succession ritual of, "laying of the hands", that ensured that each new Rabbi granted Semicha was the next link in the Sinaic tradition.  These followers of the way of Jesus did not.

This is why I believe the gospel community called upon the Messiah narrative so strongly in their stories of Jesus.  The Messianic tradition gave an alternate legitimate source for interpretation of the law outside of the existing Rabbinical authority system and institution.  The first century expectation was that the Messiah would show the people of Israel the correct way to interpret and practice the Law.  By placing Jesus in the Messiah role the community of Mark were able to claim that their perspective and practices in regard to the law were legitimized by an authority that fit within the Jewish tradition.

We saw in the beginning of the second chapter Jesus portrayed as citing his identity as the "son of man" as his authority to interpret the Law in a radical new way.  Here he also performed a healing on the Sabbath and proclaimed the man's sins as being forgiven.  We looked at this in the earlier post,
Your-Sins-are-Forgiven Mark-2:1-12.

In the passage we are looking at presently, Jesus again breaks with the traditional interpretation of the law, but this time gives guidance on how the Law should be interpreted. "Doing good", and, "to save life", are what is lawful.

Lord of the Sabbath - Mark 2:23-28

23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-28 NIV)

In the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the writer hammers the point of people being more important than legalism over and over.   In the new way of Jesus, inclusion is more important than rigid adherence to religious laws. In other stories addressing legalism in the Gospels, Jesus breaks with rigid interpretations of the law where it conflicts with inclusion, compasion, or other greater principles.  In this passage, the rejection of strict observance of religious practice is widened to encompass all situations where law is made more important than the people it was designed to serve.

The community of the Gospel of Mark must have found the issue of not following strict Jewish practice a major source of criticism by the rest of their Jewish neighbours that this theme is repeated so often. Scholars believe that the community that wrote the Gospel of Mark lived outside of the traditional lands of Israel as part of the Jewish Diaspora. Often cultural groups that establish themselves someplace geographically removed from their point of origin work to practice and preserve their culture to a degree greater than those who remain in their homeland. This is why music anthropologists were able to find examples of unchanged 18th century Celtic music in the hills of Appalachia in the Eastern United States that had been lost from their Irish and Scottish homelands.

This may well have been the case of the wider Jewish expatriate community in whatever country the followers of Jesus who wrote the Gospel of Mark lived. One can speculate that the wider Jewish community tried to be even more Jewish than those back in what had been Israel. One can also assume with the prominence of the Pharisees as antagonists in their stories of Jesus that the Jewish community in which the people of Mark found themselves largely followed the Pharisaic tradition. This tradition stressed the importance of a large collection of regulations passed down through Rabbinical teaching to clarify and break down in ever increasing levels of minutiae the proper observance of the Torah. These regulations set standards on what it meant to follow laws like the command to rest on the Sabbath. They defined for the observant Jew what should be considered "work" and therefore restricted on the Sabbath, what constituted the beginning and end of the Sabbath when these restrictions applied, and what exemptions were allowed. 

Much of this legalism was based on the Mishnah, a redaction of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (536 BCE – 70 CE). The Mishnah is comprised of examples of Rabbinical judgments that were used to determine the correct way to carry out laws recorded in the Torah. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah

Concerning the legalism of the Pharisees with regard to the Sabbath, J. W. Shepard, in his book, The Christ of the Gospels, writes:

“The Mishna says: ‘He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath to the quantity of a fig is guilty; and plucking corn is reaping.’ Rubbing the grain out was threshing. Even to walk on the grass on the Sabbath was forbidden because it was a species of threshing. Another Talmudic passage says: ‘In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered sifting; if she rubs the head of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing’ [Jer. Shabt, page 10a]. The scrupulosity of these Jews about Sabbath was ridiculously extreme. A Jewish sailor caught in a storm after sunset on Friday refused to touch the helm though threatened with death. Thousands had suffered themselves to be butchered in the streets of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes rather than lift a weapon in self-defense on the Sabbath! To these purists, the act of the disciples was a gross desecration of the Sabbath law. ( J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939) https://bible.org/seriespage/18-great-sabbath-controversy-luke-61-11

The philosophy of petty legalism focuses on the individual rather than others and the greater good, on self justification and self righteousness rather than selflessness and the spirit of God.  It is motivated by the desire to label oneself as without fault through the careful navigation of minutiae and the letter of the law.  It is a way of thinking that makes being, "right", being beyond reproach and superior, the primary concern.  Legalism allows a person to gain a false self confidence and worth by viewing him or herself as better than others and allows the individual to judge and distance oneself from others.  Since one's worth is based on comparison with others and finding one's value through judging others as lesser, this mindset moves people away from the compassion and inclusion central to Jesus' message. 

As part of his homily at Mass on April 11, 2016, the Pope criticized those who care more
about the letter of the law than people’s individual situations. I know I included this quote in my last post, but it is so relevant here I couldn't help myself.

__________________________ 

Their hearts, closed to God’s truth, clutch only at the truth of the Law, taking it by ‘the letter,’ and do not find outlets other than in lies, false witness, and death,” Pope Francis 

https://sojo.net/articles/pope-francis-again-blasts-moral-legalism-religious-leaders 

 __________________________

One aspect of this story in Mark that stands out is how trivial the reason is that's given for disregarding the zealous interpretation and practice of the law. There was no injustice to be corrected, no exclusion to be righted, or mission of compassion as in the other stories. The disciples are not portrayed as being in need due to hunger. They just wanted a snack and the Pharisaic regulations defining the law of the Sabbath were inconvenient. 

Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke recount the following as a saying of Jesus:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. (Matthew 23:23 NIV)

This is a good summary of the justification given in the other stories of Mark where Jesus disregards the law. However, in the story in this passage, people are put above the law on a matter of principle, not just where there is a conflict with the underlying spirit of justice, mercy and faithfulness. Laws like observing the Sabbath are seen as being made to serve humanity, not humanity to serve the law.

In an article at Patheos.com, Morgan Guyton describes the dissagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees as a difference between consequentialist and deontological ethics. In consequentialist ethics, you decide what to do on the basis of what will cause the most good and least harm.  In deontological ethics, you find an authority figure to give you a duty to obey.  The more unreasonable the duty, the more "ethical" and faithful the observance.

People with deontological ethics only feel assured that they are submitting fully to an authority if they perform duties that make no sense from a consequentialist perspective. The duty must be opaque to be fully deontological. Deontological ethics says that unless I do what makes no sense to me, then my sense is my authority rather than the Bible.

In regards to this difference in ethics in Jesus interaction with the Pharisees, Guyton explains:

For the Pharisees, the Sabbath is an opaque duty. The test of whether you’re honoring the Sabbath or not is whether you avoid doing even virtuous deeds for the sake of honoring God. When Jesus puts the Sabbath in terms of “doing good or doing harm,” he’s making the Sabbath consequentialist rather than deontological. The Pharisees would say that Jesus is offering a false choice. The cessation of work on the Sabbath is a duty. Making the Sabbath pragmatic destroys the deontological authority of the law.

Jesus makes his consequentialist stance explicit when he says, “The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath, and the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). So to me, respecting Jesus’ lordship as the chief interpreter of scripture means reading it consequentially rather than deontologically.  
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/05/12/why-were-ethically-incomprehensible-to-each-other/

Modern Christianity, however, is also no stranger to deontological thinking and a Pharisaic devotion to legalism.  I recently read an article posted on Facebook by a Christian organization where the author condemned Christians for using the abbreviation, "OMG".

OMG (for those who may live under a rock) stands for, "Oh My God", or, "Oh My Goodness". It is most commonly used as a dramatic expression of mock surprise, astonishment, or disbelief. The author of this article chastised fellow Christians for breaking God's law by taking his name in vain and stressed how the trivialization of God's name in the sake of silliness was jeopardizing their souls and the souls of non-Christians who may be witness to this display of non-piousness. This practice was decried even if the person intended the abbreviation as "goodness" rather than "God", because others might assume that the word "God" was intended.


I couldn't find the post or article I originally viewed, but in looking for it I found a multitude of articles and posts echoing the same theme, one of which I linked below.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=208242766188854&id=100010093953581

At this point I must confess that I have had my own period of zeal for legalism in my Christian journey and that my criticism is somewhat directed to my younger self.  As a young person, my understanding of being faithful to Christ centred around following the social rules the culture of my small town recognized as being "christian": being respectful and obedient to my town's recognized social leaders such as teachers, working hard and being successful at school and community organizations, obeying moral restrictions like sex outside of marriage, smoking, drinking alcohol, and swearing.  In University I was quite disturbed to find that many of these rules were not a universally accepted understanding of Christianity, but were culturally specific, and that many people did not share what my home community agreed on without question was "good" and "Christian".

Discussing petty legalism reminds me of a time in my first year of University.  In the middle of exams, I found myself stressed and anxious from many solitary hours in the library cramming readings.  I found my anxiety coming out with the often repeated thought of, "rats".  Now, at this time, I felt cursing in any form to be unchristian.  I felt quite embarased at this lapse in mental discipline.  Were not rats one of God's creatures?  How could I claim to love God and use the name of one of his creatures in a curse like way?  Although thinking positively about the world and all creation can be a healthy and helpful attitude that should be encouraged, I no longer think of failing to do so in a legalistic fashion, or as something one should condemn oneself for.

It seems that there is a large contingent in the Christian community that, like my earlier self, fail to understand the many stories in the Gospel about legalism like the one in our passage.  It would also seem that there are many who also don't appreciate the stories in the Gospels where Jesus calls out the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law for public displays of holiness and righteousness like public prayer and acts of charity while minimizing the more important matters in honouring God such as mercy and justice.  Overall, I get the feeling that there are many Christians who would feel more comfortable with the Pharisees than in the company of Jesus.

The commandment this overzealous legalism is based on is of course the fourth of the Ten Commandments:

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (Exodus 20: 7 NIV)

The King James Version translates this as taking the, "name of the Lord thy God in vain", which means to make it ineffectual, without significance, value, or importance.  I like the New International Version's translation of this as "misuse".  With that in mind, and the Gospel writers' portrayal of Jesus' emphasis on focusing on the "more important matters" behind the law, true misuse of God's name has little to do with silly abbreviations.

A truer example of misusing the name of God, would be Hitler's statement in Mein Kampf where he uses God to justify his campaign against the Jews.

I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work.

Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf

True misuse of God's name is when it is called on to justify or legitimize hate, intolerance, prejudice, oppression and injustice.  The most blasphemous and evil misuse is to misrepresent God as having characteristics and values opposite to those revealed in the Gospel stories of Jesus.  To use God's name to sanction prejudice and victimization of homosexuals, trans individuals, or people of minority religious or ethnic groups is the epitome of "taking God's name in vain".  People who do this make the name of God meaningless and ineffectual, robbing it of it's transformational and life giving power.  This is the more, "important matter" of this law that Christians should be focused on.

The Gospel of Matthew reports Jesus as stating that his "yoke", the rules he imposes on his followers, and his "burden" are light (Matthew 11:30).  In terms of a lack of rules and regulations, particularly in contrast to the teachers of the Pharisees, this is true.  However, his teaching comes with a "burden" that many find too heavy to bear, the onus of thinking for one's self rather than giving up that responsibility to authority.  Instead of surrendering our personal accountability for moral and ethical thought and decision making to a set of rules and their interpretation by some authority figure, Jesus' teaching calls us to take this task with the potential for "getting it wrong" on our own shoulders.  We are called to use the spirit of love, compassion and inclusion that he demonstrated in the Gospel to judge if and when a rule will cause the most good and the least harm and when it will not and make our decisions on that basis.  

In short, Jesus is telling us to grow up and take responsibility for ourselves.  We are directed to make the Sabbath serve humanity instead of making humanity serve the Sabbath. This can only be done by not blindly allowing rules and authority to make our decisions for us.

The New Way - Mark 2:18-22

18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”

19 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.” (Mark 2:18-22 New International Version)

This passage in the Second Chapter of Mark is the climax and summary of the three previous stories about Jesus' new teaching on inclusion and community over the letter of the law and religious practice. The opening statement of the Gospel, that Jesus is the Messiah, God's chosen king to bring about the new eschatological era for Israel, is reiterated with the previous stories illustrating the new covenant he brings and how it differs from the old. Zealous pursuit of the letter of the law and religious ritual is characterized as the old way while a focus on community, inclusion and principles of mercy and justice behind the Law are portrayed as a totally new way and not merely an addition to the existing ethos which is to be abandoned in favour of the new.

All three synoptic Gospels share this story and all three place it directly after the story about the calling of Levi and the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus and his disciples for eating at Levi's home with tax collectors and sinners.  It seems clear that this passage is a continuation of this story with the question about Jesus' disciples not fasting suggesting that instead of taking part in the regular fasting period of the disciples of the Pharisees and John the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus were eating with tax collectors and sinners at Levi's home.

This sets up an opportunity to contrast the vision of Jesus and the vision of the Pharisees.  The writer insists that Jesus' teaching is not just an addition or amplification of the existing, but something completely new.  Jesus' "Way" is compared to new cloth which must be used to make a new garment or a new wine requiring new wineskins.  It can not be used as a patch on the existing way, but requires that it be made into an entirely new garment.  The old way can not be used as a vessel for the new, but requires a new vessel, or both will be ruined. 

Judaic thought of the time, as represented by John and the Pharisees, was one of a community of exclusive holiness.  Only by the people becoming more holy and purging themselves of the unclean, fulfilling their side of the covenant through strict adherence to the 
Law, would God fulfill his side and drive out their oppressors and make them a nation again.  This could only be accomplished through increased zeal in meeting the letter of the law for the purity and holiness regulations and rituals as a community.  This mindset demanded the exclusion and censuring of those who did not, or could not, meet these practices to the level demanded.  We see this in this passage and the preceding stories through the exclusion and condemnation of the disabled, the ill, and those not tithing or meeting the purity practices and rituals.

The new way of Jesus as illustrated by the three preceding stories envisions a community of inclusive compassion.  Laws, practices and individual behaviour are secondary to a whole and inclusive community and to the principles of community, compassion and equality behind the law.  This is illustrated in the previous stories by Jesus going out of his way and even breaking purity laws and religious practice to bring into community those who were excluded and even reviled:

• Absolution of a disabled man who could not fulfill the temple sacrifice forgiven
• Holiness practices disregarded as part of healing a leper
• Fasting forgone in preference to honouring tax collectors and sinners.

__________________________ 

Their hearts, closed to God’s truth, clutch only at the truth of the Law, taking it by ‘the letter,’ and do not find outlets other than in lies, false witness, and death,” Pope Francis 

 https://sojo.net/articles/pope-francis-again-blasts-moral-legalism-religious-leaders

 __________________________

Pope Francis is someone who understands the community of Mark's teaching of the way of Jesus.  As part of his homily at Mass on April 11, 2016, the Pope criticized those who care more about the letter of the law than people’s individual situations.  This Pope understands that community is more important than "purity".

The fundamental nature of this message as central to the way of Jesus is spelled out by the community of Mark in the portion of the passage where Jesus is related as describing himself as a bridesgroom.  This is a common metaphor in the Tanakh (Jewish Scriptures) where the relationship between God and the people of Israel is described as one between husband and wife.  Recasting Jesus as the husband in this allusion is a reoccurring one in early Christianity and common to the movement.  It is seen in the earlier Epistles of Paul and the much later Gospel of John.  In the Third Chapter of the Gospel of John, John the Baptist is presented as referring to Jesus as both the messiah and a bridesgroom with the crowds who moved away from himself to Jesus referred to as the bride.

The metaphor of God as the spouse of Israel is a common one in the mindset of the Second Temple Period.  It also has a strong eschatological connection.  In the book of Hosea, this marriage ends in a separation or divorce because of Israel's unfaithfulness. The eschatological or messianic age is given as a time when the marriage between God and Israel will be renewed. 

"...a marriage metaphor was often used to describe God’s relationship with his people in the Hebrew Bible. The marriage ended in disaster because Israel was an unfaithful spouse. But in the eschatological age, God will restore Israel to her former position and create a new covenant with them. God in fact does a miracle by restoring the faithless bride to her virgin state and re-wedding her in the coming age... Jesus stands in this prophetic tradition when describes the eschatological age as a wedding celebration and himself as the bridegroom in Mark" Richard D. Patterson   https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-4/JETS%252051-4%2520689-702%2520Patterson.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjQ7rah-YfMAhXBtIMKHfv2DH44HhAWCB0wAg&usg=AFQjCNEhyN3tD5sQeU7ydmJWyI7M56gUQA&sig2=TzN7_iMq17iJCOcPSqhhlA

The authority of this new teaching, this new way, is that of the messiah who ushers in the renewed marriage between God and his people, a new relationship where no one is excluded.  The meal with the sinners and tax collectors becomes a wedding feast celebrating this new covanent where those who were excluded and reviled are honoured and no one is turned away.  Legalism and ritual are swept away in an outpouring of community that embraces all.

Even Tax Collectors - Mark 2:13-17

13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.  15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:13-17 NIV)

In this next passage from the second Chapter of Mark, we are given yet another story of Jesus demonstrating the inclusive nature of his ministry and of his coming kingdom.  This is the third story, one right after the other, about the inclusiveness of Jesus. Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian) relates that according to Jewish law, once something is done three times it is considered a permanent thing (http://www.betemunah.org/three.html). This is called a “chazakah".  For the community of Mark to put three stories in a row centered on Jesus' inclusion of those considered outsiders in the society of his time is a strong and definitive statement about the importance of inclusion as a defining principle in their understanding of the way of Jesus.

Let's look at these three stories:

In the previous passage Jesus is shown as forgiving the sins of a man who by nature of being crippled was excluded from the temple and the temple practice of sacrifice and forgiveness.  As such he was a religious and social outcast. The community of Mark used this story to illustrate that none among them were by their nature, or by virtue of who they were, excluded from Jesus' kingdom, or the full fellowship of God.  


The story before that was the healing of the leper.  The man with leprosy breaks the rules regarding proximity and social contact for lepers when he approaches Jesus.  He puts Jesus, and the crowd that was most likely around him, at risk of becoming unclean themselves and unable to worship God until they underwent purification. Jesus, however, instead of shunning or rebuking him, not only interacted with the man, but also touched him to heal him, making himself ritually unclean.  

Lepers were considered to be in a constant state of ritual impurity and were excluded from the community worship of God and from interaction with, "clean", people.  Jesus' compassion in wanting to see the man returned to fellowship with the people and with God overrode any concerns over his own religious purity and ritual cleanliness.  The community of Mark included Gentiles and women, people who were by their very nature considered to be, "unclean", by Judaic law and ineligible for full communion and worship of God.  This story told them that they were included, that no ritual or religious law could bar them from full membership in the community and the faith, and that Jesus' coming kingdom was for all of them.

The third story on the principle of inclusion is the passage we are currently looking at.  Here Jesus calls a Tax Collector named Levi to follow him, to become one of his disciples.  He is also criticized for eating at Levi's house with tax collectors and, "sinners".  Let's start off by looking at Tax Collectors in first century Palestine and the people's perception of them.

Tax Collectors were reviled by the Jews of Jesus' time because they were usually fellow Jews collaborating with the Roman occupiers.  They were seen as greedy opportunists using the oppression of their fellow Jews as a source of profit for themselves.  They worked for tax farmers, a form of revenue leasing where the tax collector leases the right to collect and retain the whole of the money owed to the state in return for a fixed payment.  Known to cheat the people they collect from by collecting more than what was required, they were usually well to do and formed their own elite social group.

Tax Collectors were seen by the Jewish community and particularly the Religious Leaders as enemies to both them and God, to be shunned and despised like lepers and the disabled.  Think of the Nazi collaborators in France during the German occupation and how the people of France viewed them.  The Tax Collectors not only gained profit by supporting the people's oppressors, they were in competition with the collection of the Temple taxes and the tithes.   The Religious Authorities believed the people of Israel needed to pay these tithes and Temple taxes to be right with God as part of carrying out their side of their Covenant with God.  It was believed that the reason God had allowed them to be defeated as a nation was a lack as a people in fullfilling the obligations of Covenant in terms of the Law and that they needed to follow the regulations to a greater degree before God would rid them of the Roman occupiers and make them a nation again.

The Tax Collectors, if not unpopular enough, used violence, or the threat of violence in order to extort their money from the people under the auspices and authority of Rome and the backing of the occupying Roman military forces. 

To appreciate how the Jewish people felt about Publicans, consider the modern parallel of the Black community in the town of Ferguson Missouri. We have watched on television the protests and rallies against the white city officials and judiciary who use legalized force to exploit and further impoverish the Black community.  In Ferguson they do this through a de facto taxation system of laws and regulations targeted at extorting money specifically from members of the Black Community.  The Jewish community would have harbored a similar resentment to their exploitation by Tax Collectors for Roman taxes.

Now, in the Gospel story so far, Jesus has already gained a great deal of popularity with the people and a popular Rabbi calling someone to be his talmidim, or disciple, was a great honour and a great commitment on both their parts.  To bestow this honour on someone from a group considered to be an enemy of the Jewish people and their return to nationhood was shocking to say the least.  To the teachers of the law who were Pharisees, this was close to both heresy and treason.

To put this into perspective, imagine a Christian faith healer and teacher with a following in the Southern U.S. gaining a lot of attention, drawing crowds due to his miraculous faith healings and growing in popularity among Christians there.  Imagine him publicly picking a newly immigrated Gay Socialist Transvestite Arab as one of his inner circle.  Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, the leaders of the Religious Right would be outraged.

"God hates them" 

"These people are the reason God is not blessing us, the reason why we are no longer great" 

"God is punishing us because we tolerate this kind" 

"We need to get rid of them in order for God to bless us and bring us prosperity and victory again"

Jesus drove his message further home by having dinner at Levi's house with a group of tax collectors and "sinners", those who did not tithe or follow the Jewish purity rituals and practices.  Eating with tax collectors and sinners is the issue that the teachers of the law who were Pharisees criticize him for.  To fully understand why this offended them, one has to look at table politics and etiquette in first century Judea.

Commensality, the practice of eating together, or its absence, was a sign of group membership. "Likes eat with Like." The meals of Judeans showed their group affiliation, or their separation. Food also functioned as a metaphor for the word of God. Concern for doctrinal and ethnic purity were mirrored in the dietary and commensality practices. 

Food, articulated in terms of who eats what with whom under which circumstances, had long been one of the most important languages in which Jews conceived and conducted social relations among human beings and between human beings and God. Food was a way of talking about the law and lawlessness (Gillian Feeley-Harnik1981:72).  
https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/meals.html

For the pharisaical teachers of the law, Jesus, who claimed authority to teach Scripture and therefore be one of their group, was acting as if their group included "these kind" of people.  He included those who were considered outside of the fellowship and love of God in the same group as the Teachers of the Law who considered themselves as holy and set apart.  By proclaiming the Tax Collectors and Sinners to be members of the same group as the Teachers of the Law, Jesus was also demanding that the Teachers of the Law treat them as they treat each other.  By eating with them he proclaimed them to be as special to God as the Teachers of the Law. This may be the main message of the community of Mark; all are included in the fellowship and love of God with no special favorites and none excluded. 

All are included in the fellowship and love of God with no special favorites and none excluded.

Now some with a more "fundamentalist" perspective of Christianity as a religion of rules, condemnation and control might focus on the last verse of the passage, verse seventeen, where Jesus replies to the question the Tachers of the Law who were Pharisees asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

A "conservative" view might see this as Jesus condemning the Tax Collectors and those at the meal who did not observe Jewish religious practices, the "sinners", and inferring that the only reason he associated with them was to cure them of the wickedness of their behavior and lifestyle.  I can picture the conservative mind imagining the scene at the meal consisting of Jesus lecturing them on the wickedness of their ways and refusing any fellowship and companionship that might taint him with their influence until they had agreed to bow their knee and recite the Sinner's Prayer with him.

However, there is no lecturing, preaching or condemnation by Jesus mentioned in the story.  In fact, the only group of people that Jesus ever condemns or lectures throughout the Gospels is the Pharisees and the teachers of the law.  What sort of lecture would Jesus preach during the meal to correct the "sinners" the Pharisees talk about?  What might he preach to those who failed to keep the Jewish purity rituals, laws and regulations which the Pharisees felt were the requirement to be right with God and an accepted part of their community?  Jesus himself was constantly being criticized by the Pharisees for not following these regulations to the degree they felt required.  He and his disciples didn't observe the proper washing rituals before eating and they were lax in following the dietary rules.  In fact in one of the Gospel stories when Jesus is sending out his disciples to teach his way, he specifically tells them when staying in someone's home to eat whatever is put before them without question.  He was always pushing the boundaries and deliberately breaking the religious laws, healing on the Sabbath, touching lepers, eating with the "unclean" to prove that the principles of equality, compassion and justice behind the law are more important than blind adherence.

To see Jesus' table fellowship with sinners as correction rather than inclusion also depends on the dubious presumption that Jesus considers the Pharisees and teachers of the law as healthy and righteous in terms of being preferred by God and in a right and whole relationship with God.  Since Jesus is answering the Pharisees it could appear he is implying that the Pharisees and their ilk are the healthy and the righteous, but I don't think that is what is going on here.

 

As we saw in the two earlier stories, sickness and disability is not associated with individual failing, moral lack, or a fundamental ineligibility to be part of community in this Gospel.  The issue is not the leprosy or the lameness per say, it is with how it causes the person to be excluded from the community and the community's fellowship with God.  Once Jesus personally absolves the lame man's sin he solves the man's problem of being excluded due to his inability to participate in Temple sacrifice and gain his forgiveness along with the rest in his community in that manner.  The healing is then an afterthought to prove a point to the teachers of the law.

One of the mistakes we as modern readers make with these stories is that we project our own cultural prejudices and values on them.  Individualism is a strong cultural perspective for us, but in this time community was the much stronger focus.  I believe the sickness that the writer has Jesus refer to is the exclusion of the Tax Collectors and "sinners" from the Jewish community, exclusion from fellowship with the community of God. It is a sickness of the community, not of the "sinner".

Note that Jesus never asks the sinners and tax collectors to change their actions and there is no discussion indicating that they make any changes.  The only action, the only change in behaviour, was on the part of Jesus and his disciples in including the outcasts as part of their group and as part of the wider religious and social community.

 

In the Gospel of Luke there is another story about Jesus eating in the home of a Tax Collector.  Jesus publically invites himself to the home of a chief tax collector named Zacchaeus.  In this story there is a change in behaviour by the outcast. When Jesus comes to his home, Zacchaeus pledges to give half of his goods to the poor and to restore fourfold anything he has taken from anyone by false accusation.  Nowhere in the story does Jesus condemn him or instruct him to do these things.  It is just a heartfelt reaction to the respect and dignity Jesus shows him through inclusion.

It is probably fitting to note here that the Gospels have Jesus state that all the Commandments and the Law, all that God expects of us, can be fulfilled by loving God and loving our neighbour as ourselves.  The only new commandment they have him give is that we love one another as he has loved us.

The Jesus of this passage as portrayed by the Community of Mark has little to no concern about rules to control peoples' behavior, or how individuals stack up to some behavioural standard.  His concern is only about the inclusion, the love, and the respect that the community should show everyone irregardless of their behavior or practices.  It is all about the faith that including and respecting others will generate a love that will be contagious and inspire others to act in the same way.  The only behaviour targeted is that of the wider community in excluding and margainalizing some of it's members.  That this inclusion and respect often inspires those ot embraces to act in the way they have been loved and respected is just a byproduct of the wholeness Jesus calls us to.