Steve, I figured you meant that I just had to make sure.
I most certainly disagree with the position that the sabbath was a vocational command. It seems obvious to me to that one has to insert (isogesis) that into the text in order to maintain the idea that Jesus was not in violation of the commandment “thou shalt not do ANY work”.
Tell me, when God sent the manna was it only the cooks who could not collect the manna? The text most clearly forbids people to bake goods, light fires (as if that were a vocation) or to do ANY work.
You seem to be alright with Jesus healing people but what about him telling the man to “pick up your mat” when the commandment states “you shall not carry a load” (jer 17). In Jer did God mean that only particular vocations could not carry a load into Jerusalem? Don’t bring a load our of your houses is part of the command? Is that for movers? And this is what God commanded of their forefathers? Did he? Perhaps God is mistaken about what he told Moses? Where in scripture does God say not to carry a load?
It seems I’ve been ignored on a rather strong point but I’ll drop it again:
If the Disciples were ALREADY eating with dirty hands then why did they not understand Jesus’ parable?
If Jesus’ declaration that you cannot contaminate torah approved foods with dirty hands why are they so perplexed at Jesus’ parable - they were already eating with unwashed hands - THEY KNEW UNWASHED HANDS DID NOT DEFILE THEIR FOOD. So it seems most likely that the catholic and protestant church is right that Mark literally is saying that all foods (jewish and gentile) are for the stomach.
After all if pork can be digested in the stomach just as beef can then what is it about pork that defiles you?
Lastly,
it’s my opinion that you are putting Jesus right there with Bob and I. When Jesus is challenged on the Sabbath laws his response to them is:
**“Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and (D)they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple [c]break the Sabbath and are innocent?
Now I’ll give you my translation of Jesus’ words: I desecrate the day and yet am blameless. Do you disagree with that? If so then what is his point in using this? If you agree, then he’s as much an antagonist as we are.**