Mark 2:23–28

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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 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?

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.

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, 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.

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 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 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?

Mark records the reply of Jesus in two distinct parts. Each part opens with the words "And He said to them." (1) He appealed to written Scripture to support what the disciples had done: "Have you never read what David did?" and so on. (2) He defended their act on two grounds: the origin of the Sabbath, and His own authority as Lord of the Sabbath. The Pharisees, as far as we learn, gave no reply to this two-fold testimony.

David, chosen by God and anointed by Samuel to be king over Israel, was fleeing from Saul, who wanted to kill him... The priests were at Nob, and David came there, a fugitive from the king's anger, starving with hunger. He arrived on the Sabbath day. That was the day when the priests had changed the twelve loaves of showbread ("the bread of the face," or "of the presence")... David asked the priest for some of the old loaves for himself and his companions. This was a bold thing to ask, for this holy bread... was eaten in the holy place by the priests only.

Our Lord here points to the rejection of the man God had chosen for His purposes. Take David in his day. He was the anointed king even while he was the despised one, hunted for his life on the mountains of Israel. He and his company were a picture of Jesus. Jesus was now in the same kind of position as David — anointed, but not yet come to the crown... The Lord of glory was on earth. How was it that His disciples needed even ears of grain to satisfy their hunger?... How far out of order things must have been for the Lord and His disciples to lack the most ordinary necessities of life!

In that day the letter of the ancient rules had to give way to the needs of the anointed king after God's heart... "True, the showbread was only for the priests. Yet for them to keep their consecrated bread and let the anointed king starve would be a strange way to honour God and the king. And now the Son of David, the Lord of David, was there, and more rejected, more despised, than David himself."

In raising the question of the Sabbath, the Pharisees show great zeal for the outward keeping of a day. At the same time they do not care at all that the Lord of the Sabbath and His disciples were left to hunger. They claimed to be glorifying God at the very moment they were rejecting His witness. The Lord exposes their unreality by recalling the history of David and his companions, who in the day of their rejection were left to hunger.

His act was clearly allowable in the circumstances. It showed the state of things in Israel... Men could not push the Lord's anointed and those with him into hardship by rejecting him. They could not then use God's institutions to stop those needs from being met... David clearly acted in this abnormal way in agreement with the mind of God. Even so, we must not justify the story he told Ahimelech, nor his flight to Achish, king of Gath.

In Israel the showbread was the twelve loaves placed on the table in the holy place, new every Sabbath day. It was holy, and only the priests ate it (Lev. 24:5-9). The words mean "face" or "presence" bread (Ex. 25:30), and "bread of arrangement" or "ordering."

This was not a doubtful point. It was not a question of human additions to the law, or of how men interpreted it. It was direct opposition to the statute in Leviticus. So how could the Lord justify it? Was it simply because they were hungry? ... and was every hungry man free, like David, to set the law aside?

Since David was rejected, God's whole relationship with Israel had gone dark, and the holiness of the consecrated things had left them... For the moment everything in Israel was on hold, and that because the LORD's anointed had been rejected. How much more, then, when the true David stood among them, only to be rejected, was it the greatest folly to argue about a Sabbath! How could the Sabbath remain for those who were refusing the Lord of the Sabbath?

By raising the question of the Sabbath, the Pharisees show great zeal for keeping a day outwardly. Yet they care nothing that the Lord of the Sabbath and His disciples go hungry. They claimed to be glorifying God at the very moment when they were rejecting His witness... In this situation, with God's anointed rejected, hunted and hungry, the showbread loses its value in God's sight. So David and his companions committed no sin, even though eating it went against the letter of the law.

Men could not reject the Lord's anointed and those with him, leaving them in need, and then try to use God's institutions to stop those needs from being met. No command God had given was to stand in the way of God's care for His anointed and those with him.

A difficulty arises here, because Abiathar was not the official high priest when this happened (see 1 Sam. 21:1; compare 1 Sam. 22:11)... But the Greek of Mark has no "the" before "high priest"; it reads "Abiathar, a high priest." Abiathar was no doubt acting for his father at the time, and he was, as Plumptre says, "of David's party, the chief agent in allowing him to take the showbread."

Compare three expressions: epi Abiathar (Mark 2:26), epi tou batou (Mark 12:26), and the similar form en Elia (Rom. 11:2). We have reached the conclusion — clear at least to ourselves — that the first should not be translated "in the days of Abiathar." All three name a section or heading of a book, the section where the account of this event is found.

When the Lord points to the kindness Ahimelech showed David, He points also to God's recognition and reward of it. He does this in a way familiar to students of God's word: He chooses the least obvious of Ahimelech's names. It is the name that marks his reward in Scripture — the mercy and honour given to his son Abiathar.

In their ignorant zeal, under a thin veneer of piety, they had made the sabbath a yoke of bondage too heavy to carry. The Lord declared with full authority, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." God set up that seventh-day rest to bless man, not to punish him.

The Lord declared that the sabbath was made not for Israel only, but for man. The sabbath was indeed a special sign that Israel was the nation of Jehovah. But it also existed before Israel's day, even though God laid on Israel the duty of keeping the seventh day holy… At Sinai, then, Israel received what had been the sabbath of Jehovah from the beginning. In its original scope it took in all mankind.

The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. It was in man's best interests to have a day in the week when he could rest. Yet often he will not rest unless he is almost forced to. God was seeking the blessing of man in providing him with one day of rest during the week. Now the Pharisees were turning it into a virtual curse for man by their rigid traditions.

In raising the question of the sabbath, the Pharisees show great zeal for keeping a day outwardly. Yet they care nothing 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. The Lord exposes their unreality by recalling the history of David and his companions, who in the day of their rejection were left hungry. When God's anointed was rejected, hunted and hungry, the holy bread lost its value in His sight. So no sin was committed, though David and his companions acted against the letter of the law in eating it. So with the sabbath: it was for the blessing of men, and not for increasing the sufferings of hungry men.

Could God say, I am greater than a moral commandment? Would that be a divine way of putting things if it were a question of hating a brother or coveting another man's wife? Such a thought would revolt us at once. But that is the Lord's reasoning about the sabbath… Besides, the Son of man was Lord of the sabbath. Surely this could not be said of a commandment about right and wrong! He had a title to dispose of the sabbath, through the dignity of His person and office.

"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." This, after all, was a very wonderful truth. But when we get Christ, truths come out. He is the God who made it, and the Man who takes up the blessings, so He has a right to teach them. God sanctified it because He rested in it, yet it was made for man. Here was He who made it, and who was a Man… If God works and rests, even in His own delight, it is for man.

If the bread of priests became common when they of old were hungry, would God now hold to His sabbath when the disciples of Jesus lacked ordinary food?… So He asserts the superiority of His own person, and He does this as the rejected man. That is why the title "Son of Man" is brought in here.

It is worth noticing what the Servant of Jehovah did here. He was perfect in His dependence, tireless in His energy, exquisite in His sympathy, tender in His compassion. Quietly, with no display, in the simplest words, He claimed an authority without limit that no man ever had before. Remember, this Lordship meant more than Adam's rule over the lower creation. This was Lordship over a divine institution which Adam never had. The Son of man, who had power on earth to forgive sins, had power on earth to regulate the sabbath also, for, even as Peter said to Cornelius, "He is Lord of all."

"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." This, after all, was a very wonderful truth. But when Christ comes, such truths come out. He is the God who made the day, and the Man who takes up the blessings, so He has the right to teach them. God set the day apart because He rested in it, yet He made it for man. Here stood the One who made it, and who was a Man… The despised, rejected Son of man is not under His own institutions but Lord of the sabbath as Man. It was made for Him, as well as by Him as God, and, first of all, being who He is, He is Lord of it.

It was in man's best interests to have a day in the week when he could rest. Yet often he will not rest unless something almost forces him to… Now the Pharisees were in effect turning that day into a curse for man by their rigid traditions. More than this, the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. His authority stands far above the sabbath itself, and beyond all measure above the authority the Pharisees claimed for themselves — little as they were willing to admit it.

First, when David, the anointed of the Lord, had been rejected, everything became common and unholy. In the same way, Christ was the last test for man in the flesh. When men rejected Him, nothing was holy for man any more, and the seal of the first covenant had lost all its meaning. Then, when Christ gives up for a time His position in Israel as Messiah, He becomes the Son of man. So He is the Lord of the sabbath, which was made for man. And so the sign of the old covenant disappears, through man's sin and his rejection of Christ.

The ideal sabbath is yet to come. In the letter to the Hebrews, the apostle shows that the rest of God did not come in Old Testament times. Then he declares, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb. 4:9). Of this sabbath rest the Son of man is Lord, as He is the true Joshua to lead His own into that rest, and to keep them in it.