And it came to pass that he went on the sabbath through the cornfields; and his disciples began to walk on, plucking the ears.
Hungry disciples pluck heads of grain as they walk through a field on a sabbath. The small act draws a sharp charge from the Pharisees — and the Lord's reply reaches far beyond one meal.
The disciples were not stealing. A path ran through the fields, and the law of Moses made room for the hungry traveller who walked it.
We learn from the parable of the Sower that a public way or path often lay through the grainfields. The disciples, as they passed along, began to pluck some of the ears of grain. They rubbed them in their hands and ate the early ripened grain. This was no breach of the law of private property. The law of Moses expressly permitted it: "If you go into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain" (Deut. 23:25). So we read of no protest from the farmer himself. But the envious, jealous eyes of the Pharisees were on the little band.
Timing mattered too. Israel could not eat new grain until the priests had waved the first sheaf of the harvest before God. This sabbath — the writer calls it the "second-first" — fell after that offering.
On the great sabbath no godly Jew would have eaten ears of grain. The law forbade it: "And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings" (Lev. 23:14). On the second-first sabbath the priests had already offered the wave-sheaf. So the rule just quoted did not apply to what the disciples did. They were free, in ceremonial terms, to eat the newly-ripened grain.
The rule the disciples supposedly broke was not God's rule. God's law leaned the other way.
Now, it is clear that there was no law of God against the case. Their censure was a law of their own. It was a human notion that takes one outward fact and builds a system on it — man's constant danger. It is quite true that God had ordained rest on the Sabbath Day for man and beast. But nothing in the law of God forbade a hungry man to pluck ears of grain as he passed through a field, to satisfy his need. On the contrary, it was thoroughly in keeping with the kindness of God to provide from His people's plenty for such urgent need.
Another writer applies the same test far beyond this field: is it written?
They quoted no word from the law here, or on any similar occasion, to back their traditional teaching. It may be easy to raise such objections. But what are they worth, unless the written Word of God supports them?
The deeper question is not why the disciples picked grain, but why they were so hungry. Their need says something about how men were treating their Master.
We now see Him a wanderer, and His followers staying their hunger with a few grains plucked by the wayside. Those who had no reason to fast while the Bridegroom was with them now had to fast, for the Bridegroom was a rejected One.
Once we see that, the Pharisees' zeal looks hollow.
In raising the question of the Sabbath, the Pharisees profess great zeal for the outward keeping of a day. Yet they show no concern at all that the Lord of the Sabbath and His disciples were left hungry. They claimed to be glorifying God at the very moment they were rejecting His witness.
Mark keeps to the order in which things happened. And this scene points past the quarrel over food.
Mark records the first Sabbath Day incident here, and it did take place at this very time. We must always keep in mind that Mark follows the thread of history. Our Lord is pointing to the break with Judaism that was about to come, and to the new character and power of the kingdom of God now coming in.
The disciples plucked the grain. The Lord answers the charge.
The Lord Himself had not taken part in the act of the disciples, but He defended them against their accusers. Precious proof of His faithful, protecting love for those whom the Father had given Him out of the world! If He is for His own, who can be against them?
- Lawful — Deuteronomy 23:25 let a hungry traveller pluck grain by hand. The wave-sheaf was already offered, so the disciples ate nothing forbidden.
- Man-made — The rule they "broke" stands nowhere in Scripture. Their accusers quoted no law, only a system of their own.
- Hungry — The King's followers were living on grain plucked by the wayside. Their hunger showed how far men despised their Master.
- Hollow — Great zeal for a day, and no concern for a hungry Lord: that is claiming to honour God while rejecting His witness.
- Defended — He did not pluck the grain, yet He answered for those who did — proof that the accused are safe when He is for them.
And the Pharisees said to him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath what is not lawful?
The disciples pick grain to eat as they walk through the fields on the sabbath, and the Pharisees turn at once to Jesus with a charge. Had the disciples broken any law of God — and what does the question show about the men who asked it?
The Pharisees say the act is "not lawful," but commentators point out that no command of God covered it. The rule they enforced was one they had made.
Now, it is clear that there was no law of God against the case. The censure was a law of their own. It was a notion of men that looks at an outward fact and builds a system on it — man's constant danger. It is quite true that God had ordained rest on the sabbath day for man and beast. But nothing in the law of God forbade a hungry man to pluck ears of corn as he passed through a field to satisfy his need. It fully matched God's kindness to provide from His people's plenty for such urgent need. There was remarkable care in Israel for the stranger, the bereaved, and the suffering. God's own command forbade harvesters from clearing the corners of the field, so the poor were not forgotten in the joy of harvest.
The setting matters. A path ran through the field, and the law of Moses let a passer-by pluck grain by hand.
In the parable of the sower we learn that a public path often ran through the cornfields (Mark 4:4). The disciples, as they passed along, began to pluck some of the ears of corn, rub them in their hands, and eat the early ripened grain. No one saw this act as a breach of the law of private property. On the contrary, the law of Moses allowed it in plain words: "If you go into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain" (Deut. 23:25). And so in this case the farmer himself raised no protest. But the envious and jealous eyes of the Pharisees were on the little band. As soon as they began to pluck the corn in their hunger, the hostile critics spoke to Him — in shameless haste to find some occasion to condemn the Lord.
Notice who they speak to. The disciples did the plucking, but the Pharisees aim their words at Jesus. One writer draws a rule for us out of the pattern running through the chapter.
Notice, for instance, what happens in Mark 2. When the Pharisees object to what Jesus does, they complain to His disciples (v. 16). When they object to what His disciples do, they complain to the Lord (vv. 23, 24). So make it a rule: when you must protest, go straight to the person concerned, not behind his back.
The objection says nothing about why the disciples were picking grain in the first place. They were hungry, and the men raising the question were untroubled by it.
In raising the question of the sabbath, the Pharisees profess great zeal for the outward keeping of a day. Yet they care nothing that the Lord of the sabbath and His disciples went hungry. They claimed to be glorifying God at the very moment when they were rejecting His witness.
The real question is not what the disciples did. It is why they were hungry at all.
The Lord of glory was on earth. How did it come about that His disciples needed even ears of corn to stay their hunger? What a tale this told! How was it that the disciples of Jesus were so miserable? The foundations must have been far out of order for the Lord and His disciples to lack the most ordinary needs of life! And who were these men muttering malicious words about the sabbath day? They would forbid even this scanty portion, when God's mercy would refuse it to no one, and least of all on that day.
The accusation lands on the disciples; the answer comes from Christ.
The Lord Himself had not taken part in the act of the disciples, but He defended them against their accusers. Precious proof of His faithful, guarding love for those whom the Father had given Him out of the world! If He is for His own, who can be against them?
- The charge: "Not lawful" was their verdict, not God's. No law of God stopped a hungry traveller from plucking grain, and Deuteronomy 23:25 allowed it.
- The habit: Men take one outward fact and build a whole system on it — man's constant danger. The Pharisees watched the disciples, hunting for something to condemn.
- The blind spot: They showed great zeal for a day while the Lord of the sabbath and His disciples went hungry. They claimed to glorify God while rejecting His witness.
- The real indictment: The Lord of glory was on earth, and His disciples needed a few ears of grain. God's mercy would refuse such need to no one, least of all on that day.
- The defence: He had not plucked a single ear, yet He answered for them. That is proof of His guarding love for those the Father gave Him.