Mark 2:23-28

8. THE SABBATH DISPUTE 2:233:6

a. Eating on the Sabbath. 2:23-28

TEXT 2:23-28

And it came to pass, that he was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need and was an hungered, he and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the shew-bread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? And he said unto them. The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 2:23-28

96.

To where were Jesus and His disciples going as they went through the grain fields?

97.

Why were his disciples plucking the ears of grain? Wasn-'t this stealing?

98.

Of what did the Pharisees accuse the disciples?

99.

How could Jesus use the example of David when David lied to the priest in getting the shewbread?

100.

In what sense was the sabbath made for man?

101.

Is Jesus saying the Sabbath law was subject to man not man to the Sabbath law? Explain.

102.

In what sense is the Son of man Lord of the Sabbath?

103.

Wouldn-'t this arouse anger in the hearts of the Pharisees and therefore be wrong?

COMMENT 2:23-28

TIMEEarly summer of A.D. 28.
PLACEIn a grain field near Capernaum.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMatthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5.

OUTLINE1. Walking on the sabbath, Mark 2:23. Mark 2:2. The criticism of the Pharisees, Mark 2:24. Mark 2:3. Jesus-' answer, Mark 2:25-26. Mark 2:4. The application, Mark 2:27-28.

ANALYSIS 2:23-28

I.

WALKING ON THE SABBATH Mark 2:23

1.

Through the grain-fields with His disciples.

2.

As they went the disciples plucked the grain and ate it.

II.

THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. Mark 2:24.

1.

Careful to watch for mistakes.

2.

objected to harvesting grain on the sabbath.

III.

JESUS-' ANSWER. Mark 2:25-26.

1.

They were unaware of the record and meaning of the scripture.

2.

David's exception would surely allow for theirs.

IV.

THE APPLICATION. Mark 2:27-28.

1.

The true purpose of the sabbath.

2.

The claim to Divine prerogative.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

WALKING ON THE SABBATH. Mark 2:23.

Mark 2:23.. on the sabbath. his disciples began to pluck the ears. Matthew mentions the hunger of the disciples as the cause for plucking the grain. Both Jesus and His disciples had been so pressed with work that they had not time for eating. Deuteronomy 23:25 makes provision for the poor and permits eating a few ears from the neighbor's field. We do not know if this was a wheat field or a barley field.

II.

THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. Mark 2:24.

Mark 2:24.. why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? The Pharisees were accusing the disciples of working on the sabbathactually of harvesting on the Sabbath. The law was Exodus 20:10. The infraction of the law was a matter of legalistic interpretation.

III.

JESUS-' ANSWER, Mark 2:25-26.

Mark 2:25-26. The reply, as given by all three evangelists, cites a violation on the ground of necessity, and one in which the necessity, as now, is that of hunger. The sanctity is not that of the Sabbath alone, but also that of the shew-bread in the tabernacle. The reference is to 1 Samuel 21:1-6: In the days of Abiathar, the high priest; the mention of the name is peculiar to Mark, and is not without difficulty. The high priest who is mentioned in the original narrative is not Abiathar, but Ahimelech, his father. Abiathar succeeded his father in office not long after, and was high priest during David's reign; so that his name is constantly associated with that of David in the history. Various attempts have been made to reconcile the difference, some supposing that Abiathar was already assistant to his father at the time of David's visit and was present when he came, although this can be nothing but conjecture; others, that our Lord or Mark was content with mentioning the name of the chief high priest of David's time, and the one that was chiefly associated with David's name, which is the same as to say that absolute accuracy was not aimed at; others, that the name of Abiathar stands in the text of Mark as the result of a copyist's error. The law of the shewbread is given at Leviticus 24:5-9. Our Lord's argument is again, as so often, an argumentum ad homineman appeal to the Pharisees on their own ground. The visit of David to the tabernacle was on the Sabbath, for the previous week's shew-bread was just being changed for the fresh, and this was done on the Sabbath (1 Samuel 21:6 with Leviticus 24:8). So David violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (if the Pharisees were right), and at the same time the law that gave the sacred bread to the priests alone. Here was a double violation on the ground of necessity, and the Scriptures nowhere condemned it; nor would the Pharisees really condemn it. David was no Sabbath-breaker, as they all knew; neither were his disciples Sabbath-breakers for gathering and eating the ears of grain. In Matthew a second illustration is addedof the priests laboring in the temple on the Sabbath without sin; also a second citation of the Scripture quoted in Mark 2:13I will have mercy, and not sacrificeas appropriate to this case also. The principle throughout is that higher requirements subordinate lower; the application of the principle, that necessity and mercy are of higher rank than any ceremonial or formal duties. The requirement of mercy was a rebuke to the spirit of the fault finders, who were very tender of the Sabbath, but cared nothing for the supplying of the needs of their fellow-men. The principle of Paul, Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:10), was to them utterly unknown.

IV.

THE APPLICATION. Mark 2:27-28

Mark 2:27-28. sabbath was made for man.These verses contain an argument not reported by either Matthew or Luke. That the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, implies that when the welfare of man conflicts with the observance of the Sabbath, the letter must give way. But of this, man himself is not to judge, because he can not judge with impartiality his own interests. No one is competent to judge in the case who does not know all that pertains to the welfare of man, and this is known only by the Lord. For this reason Jesus adds, Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath; that is, as the Son of man came to provide for man's welfare, and as the Sabbath law might need modification or even abrogation for the highest good of man, therefore lordship over the Sabbath was given to the Son of man. The passage teaches, then, not that man might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of man's welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath-day. (J. W. McGarvey)

FACT QUESTIONS 2:23-28

122.

Why did the disciples eat the grain?

123.

Why go through the field? Why not use the road?

124.

Was it wrong to eat the grain? What law provides for this?

125.

What law did the Pharisees imagine the disciples had violated?

126.

Please explain the difficulty in referring to Abiathar as the high-priestwhat explanation seems best?

127.

What principle was involved in the action of David which was also a part of the action of the disciples?

128.

In what sense was the sabbath made for man? When?

129.

Explain the point in saying the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.