The Gospel of Mark 2:23-3:6 - Jesus - Lord of the Sabbath
Driver by hunger, Jesus’ disciples walk through the grain fields and plucked grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees object to this since it broke the law against harvesting on the Sabbath. Yet Jesus desired to show mercy. Jesus responded by making a comparison to David and reminds them that the Sabbath was made for people. People are not to be harmed by their observance of it. As the Son of Man Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, He had the right to make this ruling. We get another instance on the Sabbath where the religious norms were challenged. Is it lawful to do good or harm, to save a life or to kill? The Pharisees demonstrated the hardness of their hearts and sought to trap Jesus. Yet it ended with Him healing the man and them plotting against Him with the Herodians on the very Sabbath they sought to protect.
Text
“One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
Mark 2:23-28 (ESV)
Discussion:
Jesus finds Himself, not teaching in the synagogue but on the way, traveling and moving through a grainfield with His disciples. The Sabbath was one of the most sacred days in Judaism and was celebrated but also came with strict regulations and requirements that were expanded over time. You were allowed to travel, however, as Robert A. Guelich explains, walking was limited to about half a mile (Guelich 1989, 120-121).
“Since both Jesus, who is unnamed in this pericope, and his disciples are walking through the field, it is this “picking of the grain” on the sabbath that is called illegal rather than a transgression of a sabbath’s journey (a half mile).”
Yet the Greek wording here for “as they made their way” is very interesting. Joel Marcus points out that it can mean to “make ones way” but is most often translated as “making a road” (Marcus 2008. 239-240) which may be a hint at the disciples making a way for Jesus much like John did.
If this is the case, in what way are they making a road? The reference here would not be, I don’t think, to the exact work of John. Instead, I would argue that the preparation, the creation of the road, had to do with the Sabbath. The end result of this entire narrative is the statement that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. I would argue that Mark sees the disciples traveling through the grain fields as preparatory work which would end with His acknowledgement as Lord of the Sabbath.
Plucking and “reaping” grain on the Sabbath –
It was not the fact that the disciples were plucking grain from someone’s field that the Pharisees were objecting to, because that was lawful.
“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.”
Deuteronomy 23:25 (ESV)
In fact, the Israelites were specifically commanded not to harvest their entire field.
“And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.”
Leviticus 23:22 (ESV)
And so the objection wasn’t to the disciples plucking the grain but doing so on the Sabbath. Different sects of Jews observed the Sabbath with varying levels of interpretation with the Essenes perhaps being the strictest and the Pharisees and later Rabbis being a little less strict (Guelich 1989, 121). Later the Talmud would expound on the Sabbath commands and produce 39 categories of work restrictions on the Sabbath (Neusner 2011, 318-319). Of these categories reaping (listed as the third category) was specifically prohibited. Not only was it prohibited in the commands of the Pharisees, it was also prohibited in the Torah.
“Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest.”
Exodus 34:21 (ESV)
Robert A. Guelich argues that by plucking the heads of grain they were reaping (Guelich 1989, 121). And I would agree for one reason; when Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees for His disciples reaping the grain He did not argue the point that they were not reaping but were merely plucking (the text says “for what is not lawful” but the law that they are speaking of is one against reaping). Instead, He took another approach. Thus, in the eyes of the Pharisees and Jews that keep the Torah the disciples were breaking a law. Lane comments more on this (Lane 1974, 114-115). See also the translation of the Mishnah by Jacob Neusner (Neusner 2011, 318).
“The action of plucking grain was interpreted as reaping, an act of work in violation of the Sabbath rest. Reaping on the Sabbath was formally prohibited by the Mosaic Law (Ex. 34:21), and of the 39 main categories of work forbidden on the Sabbath in the Mishnah, the third is reaping.”
So what was Jesus defense of their actions? How could He defend such an error?
David and the Shew Bread –
Jesus makes the comparison to David and his men and explains that just as David (and his men) ate the Shew Bread when they were famished, so too the disciples were justified to eat of the grain when they were hungry. But how do these things compare? David and his men ate of prohibited food, whereas the disciples ate lawful food but during an unlawful time. Robert A. Guelich discusses several ways this comparison could be approached (Guelich 1989, 123).
“Whereas David is said to have been hungry and in need, nothing comparable is said of the disciples (cf. Matt 12:1). Whereas David’s conduct involved illegally eating the shewbread, the disciples’ conduct involved illegal work on the sabbath. Consequently, the only apparent common ground lies in the doing of something forbidden by law. Such a basis establishes anarchy rather than precedent… Another approach takes 2:25–26 to offer a typology between David and Jesus rather than an OT precedent for the disciples’ conduct (Roloff, Kerygma, 56–58; Banks, Jesus, 116–23; Pesch, 1:182; Gnilka, 1:122). In addition to the lack of verbal correspondence between 2:25–26 and 1 Sam 21:1–6, the difference in detail, noted above, highlights David’s rather than the priest’s actions, the presence and actions of David’s companions, and David’s responsibility in doing what was forbidden by the Law. Roloff has taken this rather arbitrary rendering of the David story to be the clue to the correspondence between David and his companions on the one hand and Jesus and his disciples on the other (Kerygma, 22). Just as David had the authority and freedom to eat illegally and to give those with him to eat the shewbread illegally, so Jesus had the authority and freedom to permit his disciples who had left all to follow him (Matt 19:27) to eat food gathered illegally on the sabbath.”
Thus, Jesus is comparing Himself to David and the disciples to the men of David. Just as David gave to his men so too Jesus gave the right to eat of the grain to His disciples. But how can Jesus do this? If He exonerating sin?! No! Jesus applies a restriction to the Torah that later Rabbis did as well, that of life and human need. Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge explain this (Collins and Attridge 2007, 202–203).
“Instead of arguing that the disciples were not actually reaping, Jesus in vv. 25–26* seems to accept the conclusion that they were reaping and argues that those who are hungry are allowed to reap on the Sabbath. He does not make that point explicitly but argues by analogy. The argument is in part based on the precedent of an authoritative example from the past, the action of David… But in spite of his offense, the Markan Jesus not only exonerates David because he was in need and hungry but generalizes from that example and implies that anyone who is hungry may perform work on the Sabbath to satisfy that hunger. This position does not go so far as to reject the commandment not to work on the Sabbath as it is found in Exodus and Deuteronomy. But it does provide a criterion for interpreting that prohibition. The criterion is that any work that meets a basic and immediate human need is permitted on the Sabbath, because that need overrides the prohibition of work on the Sabbath.”
Jesus is not encouraging anarchy, nor is He allowing His disciples to sin. Instead, He is placing life and need above the command to not reap on the Sabbath and forgives their sin (as will be explained later). He does this by explaining that the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Sabbath created for man –
In order to explain His position on the priority of this commandment Jesus argues that the Sabbath was made for man. This gift of the Sabbath was not to be a burden or to cause harm, it was for their good (Collins and Attridge 2007, 203).
“The implication seems to be that, if the Sabbath was created for human beings, then it is meant to benefit them. The negative part of the saying then deduces the contrary: if the Sabbath is meant to benefit human beings, then they are not meant to observe the Sabbath in ways that harm them.”
In other words, the Pharisees were focused on the wrong thing. Focusing on the minutia they had forgotten the bigger picture; life. Keeping the commandments is good, and we can see from Jesus life that He kept them perfectly. However, keeping the commandments is always to be balanced with the protection of life. But how can He make this ruling, who was Jesus to make such a decision? He was not a priest, nor was He a ruler of the people, such as a Pharisee or Sadducee. So by what authority did He make such a claim? He did so as Lord of the Sabbath (Edwards 2002, 96).
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath –
The claim to be Lord of the Sabbath is not one of little importance. No normal leader, Pharisee, priest, or even king would make such a claim! This claim was more than even a Messianic claim, for the Sabbath was established by Yahweh. Thus, to be Lord of the Sabbath Jesus would have to be more than a man. But what is this claim based on? The key to understanding this claim by Mark, besides understanding the divinity of Jesus, is in understanding the term “Son of Man.” Jesus claim to be Lord of the Sabbath was not empty and it did not stand alone. Next to this claim, indeed, preceding this claim, was the statement that He was the Son of Man. The Son of Man does not mean “human” (in the context of Jesus’ use of the term) as some scholars claim. Instead, it is a direct reference to the vision of Daniel.
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”
Daniel 7:13-14 (ESV)
The Son of Man, as defined by Daniel, was a man who had the power of Yahweh, and who was given a kingdom and an eternal reign. Looking back, we can easily see how this is Jesus, but to the Jews this would have not been so easy to see. Jesus said all throughout the Gospels that He was the Son of Man, but it was not understood by anyone until He said it to the High Priest and provided the context of Daniel’s vision. It was at this time that the High Priest tore his clothes because he believed Jesus had committed blaspheme, which He had, if what He said were not true.
“But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.”
Matthew 26:63-65 (ESV)
Thus, we can see that it is Jesus, as Yahweh in the flesh, the Son of Man, who is Lord of the Sabbath. It as God that He makes rulings and forgives sins when it is for the sake of life and the good of the person. Thus, He acts in mercy, not in strict legalism.
Text:
“Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.”
Mark 3:1-6 (ESV)
Discussion:
Having demonstrated that the Son of Man was given authority over the Sabbath, Jesus makes the point even more clearly by healing a man on the Sabbath. Actions, as the saying goes, speak louder than words, and so Jesus followed His words with actions. By healing a man on the Sabbath He is demonstrating that He is Lord.
Yet throughout His ministry He healed on the Sabbath and was met with objections. During one such incident, the ruler of the synagogue demanded that people come for healing on days other than the Sabbath.
“But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.”
Luke 13:14 (ESV)
This reflects the general view of many Jews, especially the Pharisees, at the time. They saw Jesus healings as His actions, His works, and thus they saw it as “work”. They reasoned that the work of a man, even healing, had to wait until after the Sabbath. This logic is understandable when you consider their passion for the Torah, the Pharisees acted in ways that were designed to protect the Torah, to keep it from being broken. However, here at this event we see something that has not really been seen yet. The Pharisees clearly are trying to trap Jesus, and they are willing to use a man to do it!
It is interesting that by watching to see what He would do, they are assuming that He can heal the man (I cannot remember what commentary made this point, I apologize). Yet they find this healing inappropriate and object to it. When Jesus asks them if it is lawful to do good or harm, to save life or kill they did not answer. Jesus reacts with anger. This is a son of Abraham, a Jew, whom God created and fashioned and yet they desire for him to suffer in order to prove a point!
The question of if it is lawful to do good or harm on the Sabbath, to save life or kill on the Sabbath was brilliant. By asking this question He is pointing out that the law does stipulate that those who break the Sabbath are to be stoned (Numbers 15:32-36), however, it does not stipulate that the Sabbath must be past for them to do so. In other words, the law does allow for lawful killing on the Sabbath. Jesus is effectively arguing if we can kill on the Sabbath, how much more so heal?
After seeing the hardness of their hearts He healed the man with a word, “stretch out your hand”. And the man did stretch out his hand and it was healed instantly! The reaction of the Pharisees is made clear, they immediately left and plotted His death.
Because Jesus is rejecting the rulings of the Pharisees, their “oral law”, He is challenging their right to make such rulings, their authority. The danger for the Pharisees here is the miracles He is doing while challenging them. The miracles are powered by God, and this implies that God also approves of His challenge. Thus, they would reason that in order to stop this challenge they must put an end to His miracles and mighty deeds, which would require death. This is expounded on by William L. Lane (Lane 1974, 124).
“The decision of the Pharisees to conspire with the Herodians to destroy Jesus is indicative of the seriousness of the conflict with authority which erupted in Galilee. The Sabbath controversies reported by Mark did not originate in subordinate departures from the scribal tradition, but were symptomatic of Jesus’ entire attitude toward the oral law. Jesus refused to observe the traditional rules; he moved in grace toward sick individuals and healed them without regard to the day of the week. From the Pharisaic point of view Jesus’ word and action totally undermined their interpretation of the Law, their piety and their actions. Jesus was not simply another scribe who advocated an independent opinion; he constituted a threat to true religion and ancestral tradition.18 When Jesus failed to submit to the scribal regulation of the Sabbath he broke the tradition, and authority confronted authority. It was inevitable that conflict should ensue, and that the Pharisees should seek to destroy Jesus.”
The irony here is that whereas Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, they were plotting to murder on the Sabbath. Thus, the Pharisees provide a silent answer to His question (Stein 2008, 156), for them, it was better to murder on the Sabbath than to save a life.
The end result of this healing is that the Pharisees plot with the Herodians (whom we assume were supporters of the family of Herod, and thus would be a natural political rival to the Pharisees) (Marcus 2008, 249).
Summary
These stories form a sharp contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees. Where as they are concerned with the letter of the law, He is concerned that the law be a blessing and not a curse. Whereas they would let a man suffer on the Sabbath, He desires to show compassion and heal him. Whereas they would plot a death on the Sabbath, He would save a life!
Life Application
Through all this we can see that Jesus does not place our religious ideals above the health and life of people. Yet in all this we must not lose track of the value of the Sabbath. The Sabbath offered a way to find peace and relaxation with your family, resting from labor and focusing on God. Yet this gift, although great, is made as nothing when we forget the meaning of the gift is people (Garland 1996, 124).
“In our culture we have lost this gift of a day when we can reconnect with the holy and recharge our spiritual batteries. Our daily struggles may produce economic triumphs but can make our lives a spiritual wasteland. Lily Tomlin said the trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you are still a rat. We need time for ennobling our souls and must enjoy this gift. One must be cautious, however. The incident recorded in Mark reveals how a gift can be nullified by rules that saddle others with additional burdens rather than unchaining them from their load.”
Questions to Consider
Is Jesus the Lord of your Sabbath, or are rules and regulations what controls your Sabbath?
Do you place church above practical ministry to others just like the Pharisees did?
Connections
Matthew 12:1-14
Luke 6:1-11
Outline
Jesus’ disciples pluck heads of grain in the fields as they walk on the Sabbath.
The Pharisees challenge Jesus on His disciples breaking their rule on plucking grain on the Sabbath.
Jesus responds by asking about David’s eating of the Shew Bread with his men.
Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.
Jesus asks if it is lawful to save life on the Sabbath.
Jesus heals the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath.
The Pharisees teamed up with their enemies the Herodians to seek to kill Jesus.
References-
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 120–121.
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 121.
“The grammar seems to put the emphasis on the disciples’ movement, not on the plucking of the grain, but it is the latter that is chiefly at issue in the subsequent controversy; in 2:25–26 Jesus invokes the example of David and his followers, stressing their hunger. It therefore seems an exaggeration for Derrett (“Judaica,” 90) and Dewey (Debate, 97) to deny that hunger is a motive for the disciples’ action.
On the other hand, there must be some reason for Mark to express himself as he does, and it does not solve the problem totally to suggest that the participle can occasionally convey the leading idea in NT Greek (see e.g. Rom 4:19 and Heb 2:10; cf. Taylor, 215). There are certainly more straightforward ways of expressing such a meaning. Mark’s choice of grammar may rather reflect a desire to suggest (without pressing) the notion of the disciples clearing a path for Jesus. Although hodon poiein can mean “to make one’s way, to journey” (cf. Judg 17:8 LXX), it usually signifies “to create a road.” Mark may wish to play on this meaning, as the twelfth-century commentator Euthymius already suggested (see Field, Notes, 25). If so, the disciples’ action would become a partial fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah that is cited in 1:3: they are preparing the way of the Lord. This picture presents a contrast to the usual one of Jesus leading the disciples (e.g. 10:32), but it is appropriate in a pericope that hints at Jesus’ royal authority, since royal visits were often prepared for by roadworks (see Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 38, on Isa 40:3 and Babylonian texts; and cf. M-M, 438, on the use of a related substantive in a papyrus). Gundry (140) objects that plucking ears of grain would not really create a road, but Mark’s imagery may function on a more allusive level than he allows.”
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 239–240.
Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 318–319.
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 121.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 114–115.
“The generative categories of acts of labor [prohibited on the Sabbath] are forty less one:
B. (1) he who sows, (2) ploughs, (3) reaps, (4) binds sheaves, (5) threshes, (6) winnows, (7) selects [fit from unfit produce or crops], (8) grinds, (9) sifts, (10) kneads, (11) bakes;”
Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 318.
Also see
Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 187.
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 123.
Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 202–203.
Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 203.”
James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002), 96.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 124.
Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 156.
“the Herodians. Gk tōn Hērō̧dianōn. No one really knows what this term means, since it occurs only here and in 12:13//Matt 22:16, neither of which provides a clear contextual clue. It is usually interpreted as a reference to supporters of the dynasty founded by Herod the Great, who ruled Jewish Palestine from 37 to 4 B.C.E.; this is the meaning of the related term tōn Hērōdeiōn, which occurs in Josephus J.W. 1.319. Particularly important scions of the family for the early Christians were Herod’s son Herod Antipas, tetrarch in Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C.E. to 39 C.E.; his grandson Agrippa I, ruler of a kingdom restored to the size of that of Herod from 41 to 44 C.E.; and his great-grandson Agrippa II, tetrarch of certain areas in the north from 53 C.E. until the end of the first century.”
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 249.
David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 124.
