Mark 2:23–3:6

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.

The first incident tells us that the Lord "again entered the synagogue." This showed His presence in the middle of the Jewish nation, for the synagogue was the meeting place of those under law. What an arresting scene takes place in this synagogue at Capernaum! God's perfect Servant — the Lord of glory — is present with power to bless. He has grace in His heart to use that power for the needy. Man is there in all his deep need, but powerless to help himself, for his hand is withered. The religious man is there too. He has no sense of his need, no awareness of the glory of the Lord, and no care for the need of others.

That poor, helpless man had lost the use of what belongs so uniquely to man and marks his power. In Scripture the right hand constantly stands for power and ability, and for favour too. Christ Himself is now "at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens," "exalted by the right hand of God." That place speaks to us of the favour and power and might that has taken the Saviour from this world and set Him there before His God. And everyone could see that this man with the withered right hand was powerless in his own condition and circumstances.

The man with the withered hand was like Israel, powerless to do anything rightly. What value was there in the outward keeping of the Sabbath when there was no power for God?

Of these Pharisees we read that "they watched Him." They did not watch to learn His ways and the grace of His heart. They watched in the hope that He would do good "on the sabbath day" by healing a poor needy man who was present. That would give them grounds to charge the Lord with working on the sabbath. What a witness to the perfection of Christ, that His enemies expect no evil from Him, but can count on His doing good! In our own day people of the world give the same unconscious witness to the truth of Christianity. They expect Christians to do good and to act differently from themselves.

Grace had come (John 1:17), God Himself was present in grace; and this grace was free to do good on the sabbath. The Lord's true rest is the exercise of His love in the middle of evil. The Pharisees thought nothing of doing evil, as long as they kept their traditions. God held Himself free to do good. For this reason the Lord heals the withered hand, drawing the Jew's attention to this great principle in a formal way.

They had reasoned within themselves that, since the commandment of God forbade all work on the sabbath, Jesus, by healing the withered hand, would be working, and so breaking the sabbath. But the Lord's words put the matter on an entirely different plane. The question was not, as they supposed, between activity and passivity; it was between doing good and doing harm, between saving a life and destroying a life by refusing to save it. The law of God was given to hold back evil, not to hold back good.

Many of us suffer from withered hands at this hour. Sin has so paralysed us that we can do nothing for God. We cannot do any good works, however deeply we may feel the need of them. But there is salvation in what Christ has done. His precious atoning sacrifice is enough for all our need. The man who trusts in Him is blessed entirely apart from works of merit of any kind. His blessing has a result. The hand, once withered, becomes able to do something for Him in a burdened and suffering creation.

Of these Pharisees, we read that "they watched Him." They did not watch to learn of His ways and the grace of His heart. They watched in the hope that He would do good "on the sabbath day" by healing a poor needy man who was present. That would give them occasion to bring a charge against the Lord of working on the sabbath. What a witness to the perfection of Christ, that His enemies do not expect any evil from Him, but can count on His doing good!

They did not reveal their feelings by look or sign, but kept their faces still. Jesus knew these thoughts of theirs. In their hearts these Jewish leaders expected the Lord to show His known compassion for the afflicted, and to use His power to relieve the sick on that day. If He did, they would have the occasion they sought. They would accuse Him before the Great Council in Jerusalem as a breaker of the law of Moses.

Had the Lord broken the law by healing on that day? Certainly not. And they quoted no word from the law here, or on any similar occasion, to support their traditional teaching (Mark 2:23-24; 3:2; Luke 13:14; John 9:16). It may be easy to raise such objections, but what are they worth, unless they rest on the written Word of God? I wish traditional teaching of this kind had died out! But it has not, as many a person has had to find out.

The scribes and Pharisees, zealous for their own laws, watched for an occasion to accuse the Lord. They watched all the more because the man was there with a withered hand… He could have avoided a confrontation by having the man meet Him in private to heal him. But the callous religious prejudice of the Pharisees had to be faced in the open.

Grace had come (John 1:17), God Himself was present in grace; and this grace was free to do good on the sabbath. The Lord's true rest is the exercise of His love in the middle of evil. The Pharisees thought nothing of doing evil, as long as they kept their traditions. God held Himself free to do good. For this reason the Lord heals the withered hand, and draws the Jews' attention to this great principle in a formal way.

Nothing deceives the heart like religion without heart-conversion to God. Nothing else leads men into such glaring inconsistency. The men who quibbled about our Lord healing on the Sabbath day saw nothing wrong in plotting on that day to murder Him. Later on, the priests would not cross Pilate's threshold. They feared that such close contact with a Gentile would defile them and leave them unfit to eat the Passover. Yet it never occurred to their hardened consciences that shedding an innocent man's blood was infinitely more defiling!

At this point the truth of the gospel broke away from Judaism… In this matter, as in others, the Jews had made the law of God ineffective by their traditions… Both events show the persistent zeal of the Lord's enemies to prove Him a sabbath-breaker. They also show how able the Lord was to defeat their schemes, and to discern the evil motives hidden beneath the cloak of piety.

The first incident tells us that the Lord "again entered the synagogue." This showed His presence among the Jewish nation, for the synagogue was the meeting place of those under law. What an arresting scene takes place in this synagogue at Capernaum! God's perfect Servant — the Lord of glory — is present. He has power to bless, and grace in His heart to use that power for the needy. Man is there in all his deep need, but unable to help himself, for his hand is withered. The religious man is there too. He has no sense of his need, no awareness of the glory of the Lord, and no care for the need of others.

Our Lord knew what they thought about it. But faith and love are very different from human prudence. Mere prudence would have led a man not to give them the smallest excuse. Grace does not mind giving people something to take hold of, if they are ready to take it. Grace is bent on pleasing God, whether people like it or not. So Jesus says to the man with the withered hand, "Stand forth." He gives the act publicity. He stamps its character in the clearest possible way, and makes it a sign of what grace is before them all.

First of all, He says to the man, "Stand forth." That is a very important word. The great thing is to put helplessness and need in plain view of every eye. I have no doubt that was the Saviour's purpose in bringing this man forward, so that every eye should rest on the helplessness. That poor, helpless, impoverished man had lost the use of the very thing that belongs to man and marks his power... Everyone was to see this man with the withered right hand as someone completely powerless in his own condition and circumstances. Every eye was to form its own idea of the dire need standing there before Christ.

He tells the man to "stand forth" before them all. His question gives these men a chance to say what their objection is to healing on the Sabbath day. But we read, "They were silent." This silence was not the humble grace that marked the Lord. When men insulted Him, He answered nothing. Their silence was mere policy, and it exposed the helpless hatred of their hearts more clearly than words could.

Grace had come (John 1:17), God Himself was present in grace; and this grace was free to do good on the sabbath. The Lord's true rest is the exercise of His love while evil is all around. The Pharisees thought nothing of doing evil, as long as people kept their traditions. God held Himself free to do good. For this reason the Lord heals the withered hand, and draws the Jews' attention to this great principle in a formal way.

I believe it does point, in a very particular way, to service... I think it is striking that it should be the hand... And is it not true that some of God's people are completely paralysed when it comes to Christian service? Is it not true that there are withered hands among us? I wish to God there were more withered tongues! But oh, to have the hand untied. It speaks to me so loudly and clearly about positive acts of mercy and goodness for Christ. Labour for Christ, zeal for Christ, energy for Christ.

They had reasoned like this. God's commandment forbade all work on the Sabbath. So if Jesus healed the withered hand, He would be working, and would be breaking the Sabbath. But the Lord's words moved the whole matter to a different level. The question was not, as they supposed, a choice between acting and doing nothing. It was a choice between doing good and doing harm. It was a choice between saving a life and destroying a life by holding back from saving it. God gave His law to hold back evil, not to hold back good.

Simple caution would have kept a man from giving them the smallest excuse. But grace does not mind handing people something to grab hold of, if that is what they want to do. Grace is set on pleasing God, whether people like it or not. So Jesus says to the man with the withered hand, "Stand up." He makes the act public. He stamps its character in the plainest way, so that it stands before them all as a sign of what grace is.

But they still had to face the test of doing good here. God made the Sabbath, and He made it out of kindness. He could have no rest while man was in sin and misery. If they had been like Him at all, they would have seen that this day was no Sabbath to Him. But they did not know God.

Grace had come, God Himself was present in grace; and this grace was free to do good on the Sabbath. The Lord's true rest is the exercise of His love while evil is all around. The Pharisees thought nothing of doing evil, as long as people kept their traditions. God kept Himself free to do good, and this is why the Lord heals the withered hand, pointing the Jews to this great principle in a deliberate way.

The Lord even challenges them in public. They were doing evil; it was His to do good. They were seeking to destroy His life; He was willing to save theirs.

So far as they were concerned, they would rather see a man die on the Sabbath than see him healed. They would not answer, for they knew that an answer either way would incriminate them, unless they gave up their foolish prejudice.

This silence was not the lowly grace that marked the Lord when He faced insults and answered not a word. It was the silence of mere policy. It spoke louder than words, and exposed the powerless hatred of their hearts.

We read of His looking round in anger. Yet we soon learn that this was not the anger of one who has taken the seat of judgment. It was the anger of Him who was grieved at heart for the hardness and unbelief of men. It was the sensitiveness of the spirit of holiness.

Nor is this a solitary instance of Mark's carefulness in noting the feelings of the Lord. From him we learn how in the synagogue (3:5) He looked round on the Pharisees with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts. The disciples once rebuked those who wanted to bring young children to their Master for His touch. The same writer tells us what the Lord felt then: "He was much displeased" (10:14).

This silence was not the lowly grace that marked the Lord when He met insults without a word. It was the silence of policy. It said more than words could, and it exposed the helpless hatred in their hearts. The Lord looked upon them with righteous anger. But behind the anger there was distress. He was grieved for the hardness of their hearts. That hardness left them completely indifferent to the man's need. It could do nothing to meet that need. And it set them fiercely against the One who had both the grace and the power to bless.

Mere prudence would have kept a man from giving them the smallest excuse. But grace does not mind handing people a handle if they want to take one. Grace is bent on pleasing God, whether people like it or not. So Jesus tells the man with the withered hand to step out where all can see. He gives the act publicity. He stamps its character in the plainest way, and makes it a sign of what grace is before them all… Jesus showed God's power and His love in that word, "Stretch out your hand," and by the hand's restoration proved that God, the Goodness of goodness, was there.

He is a picture of Israel. The hand stands for the freshness of living power to serve God, and Israel had become withered and decayed. "Stretch out your hand." How could a man with a dead hand stretch it out? The living One who said the word gave the power. In front of the furious Pharisees, the man's hand became whole… They were on the line of murder, He in the way of mercy. They were mad, He was sad.

One rich source of errors in the text is the habit of blending two separate accounts of the same event into one… So in Mark 3:5, "whole as the other" does not belong. In the parallel passages of Matthew or Luke you will find the words with no question over them.

That is what mercy does to a wicked man. Nothing brings out sin like grace. One thing stirs up the hatred of the devil, and of Satan's followers and slaves, more than anything else. It is the mercy and goodness and character and nature of God shown in this world. So there was this cure. This poor man was relieved. That withered hand was restored, and the man now had the use of it. Still, nothing will stay or stop the terrible malice and hatred of men against Christ, against His truth and His ways of mercy here.

Some thought that healing a man on the Sabbath broke the holiness of the day. Those same men had no qualms about meeting on that day to plan the death of Jesus. The old thirst of Cain for innocent blood was there. These men claimed to keep the Sabbath, yet they hated their Messiah for no reason. They had already murdered Him — in their hearts. Was this remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy?

They were outraged because He had broken through one of their precious legal points. They went out themselves to outrage one of the major counts of the law by plotting murder. Such is Phariseeism!

The name comes from Herod. It refers to those who joined him and his successors in filling the Jews with Greek and Roman manners and loose living. In their doubts they sided with the Sadducees, but they stood firmly against the Pharisees. So it is all the more striking that they joined the Pharisees to trap the Lord in His words.

The Herodians were the long-standing enemies of the Jews... yet they would go down to their own enemies. These were the people who were against them, the people they hated and feared most. They would put their heads together with them and shake hands, so to speak... How one sees that awful principle in the world today! Is there anything to be done against the truth, against Christ, against the testimony of God and the word of God? Then the most opposite people will shake hands over it together. They will set aside their differences to blot out and wipe out the truth.

It does not say they were bent on destroying Him, but what they took counsel about was how to bring it off. They would rather cling to their own thoughts about the Sabbath than listen to His teaching.

The Pharisees consult with the Herodians (who were their enemies) to find out how they might put Jesus to death. And the Lord departs... He withdraws Himself from the hatred of the rulers of the people, to carry on His service of love.

The malice of the Jew cannot stop the grace of the Lord, or check His tireless service of love. It does turn that service in another direction, and so grace reaches a wider circle. You can see this change in God's ways: the Lord withdraws from the synagogue — the Jewish centre — and takes His place by the sea, which Scripture often uses as a picture of the nations. The rejection of Christ by the Jew opens the door for the blessing of the Gentile.