What does it mean that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath?

The Evangelist proceeds to show that the Lord justified His followers on another ground — by the enunciation of a weighty truth concerning the sabbath which the Pharisees had nullified by their tradition. The distinction of this utterance from the Lord's historical allusion to the Old Testament is marked in the narrative by the phrase, "And he said unto them." For He proceeded to introduce to them a new phase of the subject, illuminating it by the truth of God, as it could emanate from Himself only. In their ignorant zeal, under a thin veneer of piety, they had made the sabbath a yoke of bondage grievous to be borne. The Lord pronounced authoritatively, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." The object of the institution of the septenary season of rest was not the punishment of man, but his blessing.

He sums this up by announcing principles of vita! significance in verses 27 and 28. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. It was in man's best interests to have a day during the week when he might rest, yet often he will not do this unless he is virtually forced to. God was seeking the blessing of man in providing him with one day of rest during the week. Now Pharisees were turning it into a virtual curse for man by their rigid traditions. More than this, the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath: His authority is far higher than that of the sabbath, and certainly infinitely higher than the assumed authority of Pharisees, little as the Pharisees were willing to recognize it.

Traditional Teaching about the Sabbath. — Now, in another manner, it was demonstrated that a new day had dawned upon men. For traditional teaching about the Sabbath urged by its champions is next brought before us, and condemned by the Lord as inimical to man's interest, and hostile to God's activity in grace. In the corn-fields the former was made plain; in the synagogue the latter was seen. Now nothing is there, which men naturally more resent, than that which militates against their traditions. In the gospel of John we learn how the Lord's healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath stirred up the animosity of the Jews, so as even, if it had been then possible, to kill Him (John 5:16, 18; 7:1, 19-23). Now, the due observance of the Sabbath was binding upon all Israelites. That day of rest was a sign between God and Israel (Ezek. 20:12); and it was meant for their blessing, a day of rest at the close of each week of toil. But, as is so often the case, traditional teaching grafted on truth, but not really subject to Divine revelation, militates against the object originally in view. So when the Lord and His disciples were walking through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day, and the latter, because hungry, plucked the ears of corn and ate of them, rubbing them in their hands, certain of the Pharisees (we presume they were not hungry) saw that, and immediately said, "Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days?" (Luke 6:2). This assumed what had to be proved, that in acting thus the disciples broke the law. But what law? Where in the Pentateuch was such an enactment to be found? The Pharisees adduced no word of God in support of their contention. In truth, it was traditional teaching on which they were resting, unsupported by the law of God. How often has the same kind of thing been done! Traditional teaching, which God never authorised, is held to be binding on men, and is enforced with rigour. Now, for man's benefit was the Sabbath instituted. The Pharisees perverted God's beneficent institution, so as to make it inimical to man's interest. Did God mean people to starve because it was the Sabbath? The Lord too, elsewhere, reminded the Pharisees that the priests worked on the Sabbath, and an infant, to save it alive, would be circumcised on that day (Matt. 12:5, John 7:23). Works of necessity were not forbidden by the fourth commandment. Moreover, the Jews themselves would water their ox or their ass on that day, and would pull a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath, if it had fallen into one (Luke 13:15, Matt. 12:11). The spirit of the law, and their own practices, where their temporal interests were concerned, alike condemned their traditional teaching on the subject.

(3) Mark and Luke append to this the Lord's settlement of the Sabbath question, which for the Jew had such great importance as involving their whole covenant-relation to God. This we have very similarly in Matthew (Matt. 12:1-13, see notes), though in a different connection. The example of David, is given here as there; but instead of the appeal to the priests in the temple, and the quotation from Hosea, Mark substitutes Christ's own affirmation that "the Sabbath was made for man; and not man for the Sabbath: so that the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." The tender solicitude for man, which appeared in such an institution, and which the Pharisees had gone far to obliterate by the harshness of their additions, was itself the convincing proof of the authority of the Son of man over it. It was for man that He had become the Son of man; and as such, all the blessing of man was in His hand to accomplish. Reject Him, and all this vanished. The rest of God, the real rest for all His creatures, He alone could bring in; and the sign was necessarily gone when that which it signified had no longer reality for any.

298 Let us now see what the New Testament directly affords us on the sabbath. Is any hint as to its sacredness to be found? Matthew 12:1 is evidently of great consequence here. The Pharisees complained of the disciples' plucking and rubbing the ears of corn. The Lord's answer is remarkable. It is not to rebuke the Pharisees as He does elsewhere, but to shew that the sabbath and other ceremonial enactments have been set aside for sufficient cause, and that a greater than any obligation of the sabbath was there. 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 at once. But that is the Lord's reasoning as to the sabbath. First a rejected Messiah made all common, for another obligatory commandment, the sabbath, gave way under God's own eye. Christ was greater than the temple; and if they knew God's heart, they would not have condemned His disciples. All this proved the Pharisees wrong and unjustifiable. But, besides, the Son of man was Lord of the sabbath. Surely this could not be said of a commandment as to right and wrong! He had a title to dispose of the sabbath, through the dignity of His person and office. Could all this have been said if the Lord were insisting on the maintenance of its authority? He adds that it is lawful to do well on the sabbath. The parallel passage in Mark adds, The sabbath was made for man.

Matthew's gospel gives us dispensational changes, and, on that ground, Christ's person as divine; and the place He took as Son of man laid the ground for dealing with the sabbath as Lord of it. Here Christ is the servant-prophet, and we have another ground laid: the sabbath was made for man. It was in favour of — for — man; and hence He who ordered all for man, as the head of the race according to God, was Lord of it. It was a benefit conferred on man for his advantage, and the Son of man was the competent disposer in the matter. Could this be said of a divinely binding law?

In Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7; 14:1-5; 16:10-16, all are cases where He purposely heals so as to draw attention to it on the sabbath-day, diligently offending their prejudices (to say the least) making their zeal as to it a proof of hypocrisy, without a word to save any legal force. Is not this singular that the Holy Ghost only signalizes His casting a slur on their rigid observance of it? Can any one find any other testimony as to the sabbath in the New Testament? In the Old I find on every occasion a special insisting on it, as we have seen. In the New only statements which declare His title over it, or upset legal exactness as to it.

The Question concerning the Sabbath. Verses 23-28. The question concerning the Sabbath is closely connected with the preceding parable. The Sabbath, not a seventh day, but the seventh day, was the day on which God rested in Creation. It was also the sign of His covenant with His people Israel. Plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath to eat them is nowhere forbidden in the Law. It was one of the hard and burdensome man-made traditional injunctions. The Lord cites David's case. Mark adds that David was not alone hungry, but "he had need." David, though anointed King, was despised and in need. His greater Son and His disciples were in the same condition. What is greater with God, the maintenance of an ordinance or the need of Man? Surely the latter. He, the humble Servant, was none other than the Lord of the Sabbath. He had rested in His Creation work and instituted the Sabbath for His people. He had become the Son of Man for the need of Man. As the Lord of the Sabbath He speaks, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." On the ground of Grace the Sabbath no longer exists. We have the Lord's day, the first day of the week to enjoy communion with our risen and glorified Lord, resting from our daily occupation. Blessed privilege to adore Him on that day and to follow His own example of doing good.

The Lord declared that the sabbath was made not for Israel only, but for man. It was true that the sabbath was a special sign that Israel was the nation of Jehovah; but it was also true that it existed before Israel's day, though the responsibility for the observance of the sanctity of the seventh day was placed upon them. Thus Jehovah said to them through Ezekiel, "Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths to be a sign between me and them" (Ezek. 20:12). And the Levites in their worship said, "And [thou] madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them commandments and statutes and a law, by the hand of Moses thy servant" (Neh. 9:14). At Sinai therefore Israel received what had existed as the sabbath of Jehovah from the beginning and what in its original scope embraced all mankind.

His disciples ask, “Who has sinned?” It was all wrong. The question now was, “Who is at work?” God was there in the person of the Son, at work to bring men out of darkness into light. And there was no time to be lost for the night was coming in which no man can work. It was the Sabbath day, but the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, and it must stand aside and give place to the mercy of God, of which this man was to be a subject. The works of God were to be made manifest in Him. His night had been already too long. The compassions of God are aroused. He never made the Sabbath to stand between Him and the blessing of His poor creature. He makes clay of a spittle, spreads the clay upon the eyes of the blind man and tells him to go to Siloam and wash. The poor blind creature makes no delay, raises no questions, but does what he is told, and his night of gloom gives place to the glorious light of day.

(Vv. 23-29). In the incident that took place on the Sabbath, we see a further intimation that the whole system, represented by the Sabbath, was about to be set aside. In raising the question of the Sabbath, the Pharisees profess great zeal for the outward observance of a day, while wholly indifferent to the fact that the Lord of the Sabbath, and His disciples were left to hunger. They assumed to be glorifying God at the very moment when 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. In these circumstances, when God's anointed was rejected, and hunted, and hungered, the shewbread ceases to have its value in His sight, and therefore no sin was committed though David and his companions acted contrary to the letter of the law in eating of the shewbread. So with the Sabbath: it was for the blessing of men, and not for increasing the sufferings of hungry men. Moreover, "The Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath," and therefore above the Sabbath that He instituted.

Now, we know that the Sabbath, as well as the manna, was a type. In itself, it was a real blessing — a sweet mercy from the hand of a loving and gracious God, who would relieve the toil and travail of a sin stricken earth by the refreshment of one day of rest out of the seven. Whatever way we look at the institution of the Sabbath, we must see it to be pregnant with richest mercy, whether we view it in reference to man or to the animal creation. And, albeit, that Christians observe the first day of the week — the Lord's day, and attach to it its proper principles, yet is the gracious providence equally observable, nor would any mind at all governed by right feelings, seek, for a moment, to interfere with such a signal mercy. "The Sabbath was made for man;" and although man never has kept it, according to the divine thought about it, that does not detract from the grace which shines in the appointment of it, nor divest it of its deep significancy as a type of that eternal rest which remains for the people of God, or as a shadow of that substance which faith now enjoys in the Person and work of a risen Christ.