Did the disciples of Jesus violate the
Sabbath law with the Lord’s approval? Does Jesus teach that the end justifies
the means, condoning situation ethics? Did he (and/or Mark) make a factual
mistake by naming Abiathar as high priest, even though Abiathar was not high
priest at the time of the recounted incident? Was Sabbath observance intended
for all of mankind?
Divine Law and Situation
Ethics
The Law of Moses permitted hungry
travellers to help themselves to grain fields (Deut. 23:25), while it
prohibited reaping on the Sabbath (Exod. 34:21). There is a big difference
between plucking grain by hand and using a sickle or other harvesting tools. Rather
than defending situation ethics, the example of David (cf. 1 Sam. 21:1-6) is
more likely employed to demonstrate the inconsistency of the Pharisees. They
accepted David for doing what was unlawful, while condemning Christ and his
disciples for doing what was legally permissible. Jesus merely asks a
thought-provoking question and leaves the judgment to his critics. This is not
a legitimate proof-text for advocating situation ethics.
Historical Blunder?
Mark is the only synoptic writer to include
the name of Abiathar in this account, but there are variations among
manuscripts: “in the days [time] of Abiathar the high priest” (ESV, NASB, NKJV)
vs. “when Abiathar was high priest” (ASV, N/RSV). While the incident did occur
in the days of Abiathar, his father Ahimelech was actually the recognized high
priest at the time. As a prolepsis1 this would simply describe
Abiathar as he was known when the reference was made, and it is certainly plausible
that he was present on this occasion with his father. Ahimelech was killed soon
afterwards, and Abiathar was then appointed high priest (1 Sam. 22:17-21).
There is no historical blunder here.
The Perpetual Sabbath Law?
Only Mark records the following words of
Christ, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” The obvious
point is that God’s regulations were never intended to be harmful or burdensome
but to benefit those subject to them (cf. Deut. 10:13; 12:28; 1 John 5:3). Jesus,
as “Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 28; cf. Matt. 12:8; Luke 6:5), had the
knowledge and authority to discern how divine laws were to be observed, particularly
with respect to blessing others (cf. Mark 3:1-6).
This affirmation, however, does not suggest
that the 7th-day Sabbath law was instituted for all men everywhere of all time.
Contextually Jesus is speaking directly to Pharisees (ethnic/religious Jews)
still subject to the old covenant system of Moses. The context qualifies this seemingly
general reference as applicable to Israelites amenable to Sabbath legislation under
Mosaic Law (Ex. 16:9, 23-26; 20:2, 8-11; Deut. 5:1-15). It is no more universal
than the Lord’s observation in Mark 7:7-8, where the commandments and
traditions of men advocated by the Pharisees
were merely those of their fellow countrymen, not of all mankind. The sense of
Mark 9:31 is not that Christ was betrayed into the hands of all men everywhere
but only those stipulated by the action described. Not every man universally is
joined to or separated from a wife (Mark 10:7, 9) or creates images of false
gods (Acts 17:29), but only those to whom the general allusion applies.2
The 7th-day Sabbath law was part of the
old covenant of the Jews mediated through Moses (Deut. 4:13; 5:1-15; cf. Jer. 31:31-34), and these pre-christian
regulations were in force until Jesus died on the cross (Col. 2:13-17). The new covenant
of Christ, void of any Sabbath legislation, has now superseded the obsolete arrangement
of ancient Judaism (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:9; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6-14).
Conclusion
Regardless of the unwarranted accusations
of the Pharisees, the Lord’s Jewish disciples did not violate the Hebrew Sabbath
law. Although modern-day critics would like to contend otherwise, Christ did not
condone disobedience to God’s commands, and he did not teach or justify situation
ethics. Contrary to the ardent claims of antibiblicists, neither Jesus nor Mark
were ignorant of the biblical/historical record and did not convey false
information. Despite the misconceptions of our sabbatarian neighbors, the 7th-day Sabbath law was limited to the old covenant of
the Jews and intended to be a blessing for those amenable to it, particularly the
liberated Jewish slaves of Egypt (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:15). The Lord’s new and
better covenant does not include this Hebraic convention.
When an isolated text of scripture prompts
challenging questions, let us not jump to hasty conclusions or buy into the
prejudicial assumptions of skeptics and pseudo-religionists. All the facts
should be carefully and honestly evaluated. The conclusion of our current investigation,
despite ill-informed claims to the contrary, is that the integrity of the Bible and
a coherent understanding of its message remain intact.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 A prolepsis is a
literary device that depicts something as having existed or occurred before it
actually did (e.g. Mark 11:1-2; 12:3). A modern-day example would be, “When
President Lincoln was a young boy …”
2 Compare also Matt. 10:17; 23:4, 5, 7; Luke 2:52; 6:22;
John 2:10; 2 Cor. 3:2; et al.
Image
credit: http://www.fairlawnbible.org/Images/clipart/mb.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment