Mark 2:1 – 3:6 Opposition to Jesus and Vindication of his Authority

This series of five controversy stories shows Jesus’ skill at the game of challenge—response within an honor—shame society.

Honor – Shame Society
The pivotal value in 1st Century Mediterranean society. “Honor can be understood as the status one claims in the community together with the all-important recognition of that claim by others. It thus serves as an indicator of social standing, enabling persons to interact with their social superiors, equals, and inferiors in certain ways prescribed by society.” Malina & Rohrbaugh, p.213). Honor can be ascribed through birth into an honorable family or it can be acquired through skill in the ongoing game of challenge and response. A person can be shamed by losing honor or have shame by being sensitive to the honor of one’s family. Honor must be gained, or defended, publicly as the community must acknowledge the transfer of honor from one family to another. Since so much hangs on the honor of one’s family, honor must be publicly and immediately defended at all costs. “The smallest slight or injury must be avenged, or honor is immediately lost.” (Malina, p.213)

Challenge – Riposte
Any and all challenges that seek to undermine the honor of a family must be publicly answered with an equal, or greater, challenge. To ignore a challenge results in a serious loss of face. (Malina, p.188)

Mark 2:1-12 Healing of the Paralyzed Man

The evidence of the success of the preaching-healing tour continues to be seen in the lack of access into the house. The persistence of the four men carrying the paralytic in “thinking outside the square” and gaining access via the roof is reminiscent of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30) or of blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) is referred to as “faith”. The effect of it is to allow the challenge—repost to be set up by Jesus’ statement that God forgives the sins of the paralytic. The “divine passive” indicates that Jesus is not forgiving the man but declaring God’s forgiveness.

The challenge/insult is thrown down: “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! …”

The response by Jesus, “Which is easier to say …?”, is a rhetorical question that effectively silences the scribes. The command to stand up is open to immediate verification, unlike the acknowledging of forgiveness. This would mean that to declare forgiveness is the easy option. However, to say that the forgiveness of sins is easy would be to insult/dishonor God. “But that you might know …”. Jesus “ups the ante” by implying that the healing of the lame is a sign of the divine activity in the coming of the kingdom. Jesus, mighty in word and deed is also the Son of Man soon to be on his way up to Jerusalem.

Mark 2:13-17 Calling of Levi, Meals with Tax Collectors and Sinners

The insult is “Why does he eat with toll collectors and sinners?” Under the popularizing influence of the Pharisees, meals were on their way to being the replacement for the activity of the priests in the Temple. As such, issues of purity, cleanliness and hedging off contamination were important. Who sat at table was not a secret. Attendance at meals affirmed and established social boundaries so it was important to see that the group was not being threatened. We know that issues of clean and unclean will be taken up later in chapter 7, “Toll collectors sitting in customhouses … collected levies on goods entering, leaving, or being transported across a district as well as those passing crossover points like bridges, gates or landings.” (Malina, 190) Because of the need to handle, and thrust hands into, all goods, toll collectors such as Levi would be carriers of contamination – “unclean”. They would work for chief collectors of local taxes, such as Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1ff.), some of whom could grow rich. Impurity rather than immorality is at issue here. “Sinners” functions as a catchall for those who were seen to be living outside the community (“Gentiles”?), not those who had “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Jesus’ retort by means of an aphorism, “Those who are well have no need …”, wins him honor. “It’s what I do!”, is the implied claim. The inclusive call, rather than exclusive admission, to table is itself the affirmation of the new social order; what is at issue is not disease but the overcoming of “the loss of meaning and place in the community” (Malina, p.189)

Mark 2:18-22 Fasting as the New Wineskins and New Garments?

The third challenge laid down is: “Why do your disciples not fast?” “Fasting is … a form of self-humiliation intended to get the attention of another so that that other will offer assistance to the one fasting.” (Malina, p.195). How much more than this will God give assistance?

Jesus responds with two sets of metaphors. The first says that it would be entirely inappropriate to fast at a wedding; it would be insulting. The metaphors of the cloth and the wineskins are a little less obvious. In both cases, what is of value is the old – old garments and old wineskins. They are of high value. The real tragedy would be to loose either of these; new wine, which is of little value, needs to be put in the valueless, new wineskins until fermentation has been completed. It is then transferred to the old, brittle but value-full, wineskins to be aged to where it is drinkable. Is the metaphor being used in praise of the old?

From the point of view of the “implied reader”, members of the community behind the Gospel of Mark, the bridegroom has been taken away from them, they are in a time of absence (so Crossan), and so fasting is now appropriate, or will soon be.