Mark and the Rabbis: Reading the Sabbath Pericopae in Context

Two pericopae in Mark 2 and 3 deal with the issue of the Sabbath and reflect the halakhah of the Jesus movement. This was a mark of Jewish identity then as much as now. In this story, Jesus’ disciples seemingly break one of the laws of the Sabbath, according to rabbinic understanding of the nature of the prohibitions on that day. 

In the narrative, Jesus’ disciples pluck grains on the Sabbath, an action that was prohibited in later rabbinic law – as discussed below. As we have seen, Mark’s Jesus is intrinsically anti-Pharisaic, but not necessarily anti-Jewish. An assumption must be made, that is, that elements of rabbinic halakhah reflect earlier Pharisaic halakhah. This is an assumption that cannot be proved without dissent, given the lack of Pharisaic sources. However, the bulk of scholarship accepts the genetic relationship of the Pharisees to the later rabbis. 

The original prohibition against gleaning appears in the Torah, in the following passages.

Exodus 34:21

Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. In seedtime and harvest you shall rest. 

Deuteronomy 5:12-15

Keep the day of the sabbaths to consecrate it, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13Six days you shall labor and do all your labor, 14but on the seventh day there is Sabbata to the Lord your God; you shall not do in it any labor—you and your son and your daughter, your male slave and your female slave, your ox and your draft animal and any animal of yours and the guest within your gates so that your male slave and your female slave may rest as well as you. 15And you shall remember that you were a domestic in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a strong hand and with a high arm; therefore, the Lord your God instructed you to keep the day of the sabbaths and to consecrate it.

The Rabbis established a system of thirty-nine categories of forbidden labor on the Sabbath, which was established through an interpretive lens that they used to establish legal decisions based on the Torah. The mechanics of the method are not important now, except to note that the text itself (in the Torah) does not list these actions.

m. Shabbat 7:2 (commentary in regular type)

This fundamental mishna enumerates those who perform the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, which number forty-less-one. They are grouped in accordance with their function: One who sows, and one who plows, and one who reaps, and one who gathers sheaves into a pile, and one who threshes, removing the kernel from the husk, and one who winnows threshed grain in the wind, and one who selects the inedible waste from the edible, and one who grinds, and one who sifts the flour in a sieve, and one who kneads dough, and one who bakes. Additional primary categories of prohibited labor are the following: One who shears wool, and one who whitens it, and one who combs the fleece and straightens it, and one who dyes it, and one who spins the wool, and one who stretches the threads of the warp in the loom, and one who constructs two meshes, tying the threads of the warp to the base of the loom, and one who weaves two threads, and one who severs two threads for constructive purposes, and one who ties a knot, and one who unties a knot, and one who sews two stitches with a needle, as well as one who tears a fabric in order to sew two stitches. One who traps a deer, or any living creature, and one who slaughters it, and one who flays it, and one who salts its hide, a step in the tanning process, and one who tans its hide, and one who smooths it, removing hairs and veins, and one who cuts it into measured parts. One who writes two letters and one who erases in order to write two letters. One who builds a structure, and one who dismantles it, one who extinguishes a fire, and one who kindles a fire. One who strikes a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), and one who carries out an object from domain to domain. All these are primary categories of labor, and they number forty-less-one.

We can look to Josephus for some confirmation of the predating of rabbinic legislation before its codification in the Mishnah. The most salient passage is cited below and Josephus mentions the cessation of agricultural activity.

The people known as Jews, who inhabit the most strongly fortified of cities, called by the natives Jerusalem, have a custom of abstaining from work every seventh day; on these occasions they neither bear arms nor take any agricultural operations in hand, nor engage in any other form of public service, but pray with outstretched hands in the temples until the evening (Apion 1. 209).

Other references in Josephus point towards the study of the Torah on the Sabbath (Ant. 16. 43) and the widespread observance of those prohibitions (Apion 2.178).

The narrative in Mark here seeks to establish Davidic authority for Jesus, not mentioning the disciples’ supposed hunger, as emphasized by later accounts. The development of these statements into the later rabbinic legislation will be considered below. 

This encounter with the Pharisees also sets up a number of other interactions between Jesus and the religious authorities, although less than in other Gospels (3:6; 7:1; 8:11; 10:2; 12:3). They are often mentioned in conjunction with the Scribes, and rarely with the Herodians. The interactions with the Pharisees occur mostly in the Galilean section of Mark, oddly, the least likely location of the Pharisees at that time. In a previous encounter, the issue was table fellowship, of key importance for Pauline assemblies. Here, the issue is Sabbath observance, also of importance for this group. However, in this episode, there is not yet hostility towards Jesus or to the Pharisees by Jesus. The conflict will escalate throughout the Gospel.

Mark 2:23-28	Luke 6:1-5	Matthew 12:1-8
One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” 27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”	One Sabbath[a] while Jesus[b] was going through some grain fields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful[c] on the Sabbath?” 3 Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 How he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?” 5 Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”	At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 How he entered the house of God, and they[a] ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

There might be a rephrasing of the Septuagint version of the story about David, which could be due to the manner in which Mark knew the Scriptures. It is unlikely that he, or any other Gospel author, had a copy of the Septuagint laying in front of them. He would have recalled these stories from memory form when he heard them in synagogue or in another context. In the original text, David acts alone and does not react from hunger, nor does he enter the house of God to eat the bread and interact with Ahimelekh, not Abiathar. Note that Matthew and Luke correct the issue of the error of Abiathar. Rabbi Ḥuna, a third-century Babylonian sage, makes the statement that, “the twenty-four esronot which David ate, he ate in hunger” (y. Yoma 8:5). This refers to Ahimelekh giving David the shewbread in the Tabernacle (1 Sam 21:7) and he ate those twelve breads, called esronot (Lev 24:5). The same situation is said to have happened to Rabbi Yohanan, a second-century Palestinian sage. 

1 Samuel 21:1-6

David then went his way, and Jonathan returned to the town. David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob. Ahimelech came out in alarm to meet David, and he said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” David answered the priest Ahimelech, “The king has ordered me on a mission, and he said to me, ‘No one must know anything about the mission on which I am sending you and for which I have given you orders.’ So I have directed [my] young men to such and such a place. Now then, what have you got on hand? Any loaves of bread? Let me have them—or whatever is available.” The priest answered David, “I have no ordinary bread on hand; there is only consecrated bread—provided the young men have kept away from women.” In reply to the priest, David said, “I assure you that women have been kept from us, as always. Whenever I went on a mission, even if the journey was a common one, the vessels of the young men were consecrated; all the more then may consecrated food be put into their vessels today.”

Later rabbinic commentary on this passage reveals an interesting connection to a second century CE rabbi who was arrested by the Romans for the capital offense of teaching Torah publicly during the Hadrianic prohibition of the same. The midrash below states that one may transgress the Sabbath if pursued by non-Jews or bandits. 

Bamidbar Rabbah 23:1

A Halakha: Is one who is pursued by non-Jews or bandits allowed to transgress the laws of Sabbath? Our Rabbis taught: One who is pursued by non-Jews or bandits is permitted to transgress the laws of Sabbath, in order to save his life. Thus we also find with David: When Saul attempted to kill him, he fled and escaped. Our Rabbis said: It once happened that they came to the [Jewish] leadership in Sepphoris with harsh orders from the [Roman] government. They went and said to R. Elazar b. Parta: O Rabbi! We have received harsh orders from the government. What do you say we should do, should we flee? He feared telling them to flee explicitly, so he hinted to them: “Why are you asking me? Go and ask Yaakov, Moshe, and David”. What does it say about Yaakov? (Hosea 12): “And Jacob fled.” Also about Moshe, (Exodus 2): “Moshe fled.” And also about David, (I Samuel 19): “David fled and escaped.” It also says (Isaiah 26): “Go my people, enter your rooms.” The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Such great ones were fearful and fled from those who hated them, yet for those forty years that you were in the desert, I did not let them flee. Instead I felled all their haters before them, in that I myself that was with them. Not only that, but there were all kinds of snakes, serafim, and scorpions there: (Deuteronomy 8): “Snakes, sefarim, and scorpions”, yet I did not allow them to hurt you. Therefore The Holy One Blessed Be He said to Moshe: Record the journeys that Israel undertook in the desert, it order that they should know what kind of miracles I performed from them. How [will they know]? From all that they read regarding “These are the journeys” (Bamidbar Rabbah 23:1)

I do not believe that this narrative could reveal anything of historical value about the historical Jesus. However, perhaps there is a narrative connection to 3:6, in which Mark states, “The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.” Perhaps this is meant to be a narrative framing for both of the Sabbath stories, suggesting that the Herodians were pursuing Jesus at this point and meant to be justification for the technical breaking of the Sabbath in 2:23–28. Furthermore, reading Mark as a commentary on the practices of the Jesus movement, did this reveal some sort of perceived persecution from secular or Jewish authorities that led to them adopting arguments from certain Jewish voices that allowed for halakhic leniencies vis-a-vis Sabbath observance in extreme scenarios? I am not certain that the answer is possible to know, but the context itself is important to highlight. 

However, the issue of hunger and profaning the laws of Shabbat is pertinent in this story and it is important to understand rabbinic legislation on the matter. The issue of bulmos, here a Greek loanword into Hebrew, is presented in the Mishnah and one may feed impure foods until he recovers, even on Yom Kippur. Later, in the mishnah, the statement that life-threatening situations override the laws of Shabbat is made. 

m. Yoma 8:6

One who is seized with bulmos, one may feed him even impure food until his eyes recover. One who a dog bit, one may not feed him from the lobe of the liver. Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash permits it. And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash said: One who suffers pain in the throat, one may place medicine inside his mouth on Shabbat because it is uncertain if it is a life-threatening situation. And when there is uncertainity of life-threatening situations, overrides Shabbat.

The mention of R. Matya ben Ḥarash is important because this rabbi was one of the few named Western Rabbis. Together with Todos ish Romi, there are only two Sages mentioned from the West (i.e. Rome). Matya went to establish a yeshiva in Rome, according to rabbinic legend (b. Sanhedrin 32b). There are minimal references to either of their teaching in rabbinic literature. However, in both cases, these teachers deviated from rabbinic consensus. Todos advocated for the eating of roasted lamb on the night of Passover, which the consensus viewed as prohibited because it came close to eating sacrificial meat outside of the temple (t. Beitzah 2:15). Many scholars have read this as evidence of the estrangement of the western Diaspora from the center in Israel. One aggadic statement is recorded in his name, “Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name (b. Pesahim 53b).” This statement suggests that he suffered martyrdom. Nevertheless, the Rabbis debated his legacy asking, “Was Theodosius of Rome a great man or, was he a violent man (b. Pesahim 53b)?” However, it does seem that Todos supported the Rabbis (y. Pesahim 7:1; b. Pesahim 53b).

With regard to R. Matya, rabbinic literature does not describe the result of his yeshiva in Rome or whether it was founded or not. One aggadic statement exists in his name, “Greet everybody you meet by saying “Shalom”; and try to be a “tail” to lions (in other words, associate with people who are greater than you), rather than the head of foxes (m. Avot 4:20).” In the mishnah above, Matya ben Ḥarash permits two things against the consensus. First, he permits eating impure food when one suffers from bulmos, life-threatening hunger. Secondly, he permits eating (in this case, medicine) on the Sabbath in a life-threatening situation. In both cases, we see a trend towards halakhic leniency in cases of serious illness. Other differences with rabbinic consensus are recorded (b. Yoma 86a). He asks seemingly basic questions of biblical interpretation (from a rabbinic perspective), asking why the blood of impure insects is impure (b. Meilah 17a). R. Matya is associated with some ascetic practices as in the following aggada, “Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash says: The verse [calling Moses into the cloud] comes only to intimidate [Moses], so that the Torah would be delivered with reverence, with quaking and with trembling, as it is stated: “Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11) (b. Yoma 4b).” 

The Rabbis understood “harvesting” to be one of the thirty-nine categories of manual labor that God prohibited on Shabbat.

m. Shabbat 12:2

One who plows is liable for plowing any amount of land on Shabbat. One who weeds and removes grass on Shabbat, and one who removes dry branches and who prunes any amount is liable.

Mark is vaguely familiar with some aspects of (proto-)rabbinic legislation and knows that this story of Jesus’ activities on the Sabbath was in violation of rabbinic law. However, interestingly, he engages in rabbinic rhetoric to defend Jesus’ actions, instead of relying on a condemnation of the “tradition of the elders” (perhaps the oral Torah), as he will do later in the Gospel. 

Jesus’ teaching in v. 27 is found in the Talmud. It means that the observance of the Sabbath is not absolute, there are certain things that override it, such as saving a life.

b. Yoma 85b

Shabbat is given into your hands, and you are not given to it

The latter teaching in v. 28 can be read in two ways. First, if Jesus means bar enash i.e. an idiom for human being, then he is teaching a humanitarian approach to the Sabbath. If he means the angelic figure in Daniel 7:13, then perhaps he is identifying himself with that figure (i.e. Mark is doing so).

Let us turn to the next pericope and the issue of healing on the Shabbat before concluding.

MacDonald interprets these series of stories in a manner so as to contrast between the “compassionate” Jesus and the “sanctimonious” Pharisees, who are “sticklers for Mosaic Law,” perhaps unaware that the Pharisees represented the liberal faction of Jewish legal interpretation of the time. As most are well aware, there were two dominant parties in Second Temple Judaism: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The latter represented the aristocratic, priestly families in Jerusalem, whereas the former derived their reputation through their skills in legal interpretation. The Sadducees differed from the Pharisees primarily in their rejection of the oral tradition, which the Pharisees used to rule leniently in certain matters of halakhah. Additionally, within the party of the Pharisees, there were two sub-parties: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the house of Hillel and the house of Shammai. The latter was praised by the Rabbis, their ideological descendants, as “agreeable and forebearing” (b. Eruvin 13b). It is generally accepted that Beit Hillel, the larger of the two groups, reflected the more lenient approach to Jewish law. 

Mark 3:1-6	Luke 6:6-11	Matthew 12:9-14
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” 4 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. 5 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. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.	On another Sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees were watching him to see whether he would cure on the Sabbath, so that they might find grounds to bring an accusation against him. 8 But he knew what they were thinking, and he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come and stand in the middle.” He got up and stood there. 9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at all of them, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was restored. 11 But they were filled with fury and began discussing with one another what they might do to Jesus.	He left that place and entered their synagogue; 10 a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them, “Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it was restored, as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Returning to the issue of the text itself, there is no indication that “healing” would have been prohibited on the Sabbath. In this case, what we call healing, most likely resembled what we might call magic, with incantations, amulets, and all sorts of other magical rituals (which we will see in much further detail later in Mark). Here, Jesus resorts to rabbinic thinking and logic to respond to the criticism of the Pharisees. “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” refers to the arguments made earlier about saving life on Shabbat, which would be permissible under rabbinic law. This episode seems to be an artificial episode meant to show Jesus’ rhetorical skill in Pharisaic law, but by an amateur, who does not understand the full nuances of their legal theory.

Again, the Rabbis of the Mishnah, written in the late 2nd century would not debate the point of saving a life on Shabbat, “Any danger to life overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat” (m. Yoma 8:6). However, the Qumran community seemed to be more strict on this matter (CD 11:32-33).

This reading of Mark’s comments on Jesus’ observance of Shabbat within the context of the Second Temple period point towards a justification for the halakhic leniencies of the Jesus movement in opposition to the Pharisees. Mark does not rely on originalist (i.e. Sadducean) argumentation to justify Jesus’ actions but on proto-rabbinic (i.e. Pharisaic) contextualist argumentation to justify Jesus’ actions. The types of leniencies presented by Mark show some resemblance to the few western Sages mentioned in halakhic literature. It is my contention that Mark could be a sample of legal material representing the viewpoint of western Rabbis over eastern Rabbis, which later became the consensus.

Bibliography

B. Bokser, “Todos and Rabbinic Authority in Rome,” in Religion, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity, and Judaism: Formative Judaism (ed. J. Neusner et al.; 1987; repr., New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism 1; BJS 206; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 117-30.

Donald E. Cook, “A Gospel Portrait of the Pharisees,” Review & Expositor 84.2 (Spring 1987): 221- 233.

Edrei, Arye, and Doron Mendels. “Why Did Paul Succeed Where the Rabbis Failed? The Reluctance of the Rabbis to Translate Their Teachings into Greek and Latin and the Split Jewish Diaspora.” Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions (2014): 361-96.

Weiss, Herold. “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 29, no. 4 (1998): 363–90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24668810.