Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 2:23
And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
23 28. The Disciples pluck the Ears of Corn
23. on the sabbath day ] St Luke tells us that this was a “ second first Sabbath ” i. e. either (1) the first Sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread; or (2) the first Sabbath in the second year of a Sabbatical cycle; or (3) the first Sabbath of the second month (Luk 6:1). See Wieseler’s Chronol. Synop. p. 353 sq.
to pluck the ears of corn ] From St Matthew we learn that they were an hungred (Mat 12:1). The act described marks the season of the year. The wheat was ripe, for they would not have rubbed barley in their hands (Luk 6:1). We may conclude therefore, the time was a week or two after the Passover, when the first ripe sheaf was offered as the firstfruits of the harvest. For the exact date of this Sabbath see Wieseler’s Chronol. Synop. p. 225 sq.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See Mat 12:1-8.
The cornfields – The fields sown with wheat or barley. The word corn, in the Bible, refers only to grain of that kind, and never to maize or Indian corn.
To pluck the ears of corn – They were hungry, Mat 12:1. They therefore gathered the wheat or barley as they walked and rubbed it in their hands to shell it, and thus to satisfy their appetite. Though our Lord was with them, and though he had all things at his control, yet he suffered them to resort to this method of supplying their wants. When Jesus, thus with his disciples, suffered them to be poor, we may learn that poverty is not disgraceful; that God often suffers it for the good of his people; and that he will take care, in some way, that their wants shall be supplied. It was lawful for them thus to supply their needs. Though the property belonged to another, yet the law of Moses allowed the poor to satisfy their desires when hungry. See Deu 23:25.
Mar 2:24
That which is not lawful – That is, that which they esteemed to be unlawful on the Sabbath day. It was made lawful by Moses, without any distinction of days, but they had denied its lawfulness on the Sabbath. Christ shows them from their own law that it was not unlawful.
Mar 2:25
Have ye never read … – See the notes at Mat 12:3.
Mar 2:26
Abiathar the priest – From 1Sa 21:1, it appears that Ahimelech was high priest at the time here referred to. And from 1Sa 23:6, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling these accounts. The probable reason as to why Mark says it was in the days of Abiathar is that Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The son of the high priest was regarded as his successor, and was often associated with him in the duties of his office. It was not improper, therefore, to designate him as high priest even during the life of his father, especially as that was the name by which he was afterward known. Abiathar, moreover, in the calamitous times when David came to the throne, left the interest of Saul and fled to David, bringing with him the ephod, one of the special garments of the high priest. For a long time, during Davids reign, he was high priest, and it became natural, therefore, to associate his name with that of David; to speak of David as king, and Abiathar the high priest of his time. This will account for the fact that he was spoken of rather than his father. At the same time this was strictly true, that this was done in the days of Abiathar, who was afterward high priest, and was familiarly spoken of as such; as we say that General Washington was present at the defeat of Braddock and saved his army, though the title of General did not belong to him until many years afterward. Compare the notes at Luk 2:2.
showbread – See the notes at Mat 12:4.
Mar 2:27
The sabbath was made for man – For his rest from toil, his rest from the cares and anxieties of the world, to give him an opportunity to call off his attention from earthly concerns and to direct it to the affairs of eternity. It was a kind provision for man that he might refresh his body by relaxing his labors; that he might have undisturbed time to seek the consolations of religion to cheer him in the anxieties and sorrows of a troubled world; and that he might render to God that homage which is most justly due to him as the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, and Redeemer of the world. And it is easily capable of proof that no institution has been more signally blessed to mans welfare than the Sabbath. To that we owe, more than to anything else, the peace and order of a civilized community. Where there is no Sabbath there is ignorance, vice, disorder, and crime. On that holy day the poor and the ignorant, as well as the learned, have undisturbed time to learn the requirements of religion, the nature of morals, the law of God, and the way of salvation. On that day man may offer his praises to the Great Giver of all good, and in the sanctuary seek the blessing of him whose favor is life. Where that day is observed in any manner as it should be, order prevails, morals are promoted, the poor are elevated in their condition, vice flies away, and the community puts on the appearance of neatness, industry, morality, and religion. The Sabbath was therefore pre-eminently intended for mans welfare, and the best interests of mankind demand that it should be sacredly regarded as an appointment of merciful heaven intended for our best good, and, where improved aright, infallibly resulting in our temporal and eternal peace.
Not man for the sabbath – Man was made first, and then the Sabbath was appointed for his welfare, Gen 2:1-3. The Sabbath was not first made or contemplated, and then the man made with reference to that. Since, therefore, the Sabbath was intended for mans good, the law respecting it must not be interpreted so as to oppose his real welfare. It must be explained in consistency with a proper attention to the duties of mercy to the poor and the sick, and to those in peril. It must be, however, in accordance with mans real good on the whole, and with the law of God. The law of God contemplates mans real good on the whole; and we have no right, under the plea that the Sabbath was made for man, to do anything contrary to what the law of God admits. It would not be for our real good, but for our real and eternal injury, to devote the Sabbath to vice, to labor, or to amusement.
Mar 2:28
Therefore the Son of man … – See the notes at Mat 12:8.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mar 2:23-24
And it came to pass, that He went through the cornfields on the Sabbath day.
A knowledge of the law without the true spirit of the law
He who has only the knowledge without the spirit of the law, very often opposes when he thinks he is defending it. Pharisaical pride makes men set themselves up for judges of everything, and require an account of everything to be given them. When a man is once full of himself, he decides confidently, especially when it is to condemn others. Those who love to domineer are not content to exercise their authority upon their own disciples, but would fain bring those of others under their dominion. (Quesnel.)
Scrupulosity
Scrupulosity is considered by some as identical with conscientiousness. It is not so. It is a tare that resembles the wheat, but is not wheat; a disease of the conscience, not a refinement of it. You must not judge an eye by its sensitiveness to light, but by its power of seeing. When light pains the eye it is because there is inflammation, not because the organ is a fine one. So it is with conscience. The health of conscience is not to be measured by its sensitiveness, its protests, and its objections; but by its power to lead a man into all genial activities and self-denying charities. Conscientiousness is a happy child, whose language is-What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits? Scrupulosity is a slave, whose language is-What must I do to avoid Gods rebuke? Conscientiousness acts on great principles; scrupulosity on little rules. Conscientiousness serves God, blesses man, and protects him who cherishes it; scrupulosity is often useless to everybody. Conscientiousness makes man an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile; but scrupulosity often makes him an Ishmaelite indeed, in whom there is often a good deal. The Pharisees were full of scrupulosity, and it produced in them all uncharitableness. (R. Glover.)
Through the cornfields
Looking out upon the cornfields of wheat we see-
I. Unity in variety. To the unaccustomed eye the wheat seems one, and yet it is various. There is the white wheat, the rod wheat, and beneath these, varieties and sub-varieties in great number. Yet what unity in the variety. Variety, too, meets us as we look out upon the vast field of humanity; yet what unity. One hand has made us all; in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free. In Him all we are brethren.
II. Fruitfulness through death is taught us by the fields of wheat. The field of burial shall become the field of resurrection.
III. The permanence of character is suggested to us by the ripening fields of wheat-Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
IV. The vast productiveness of good is suggested by the fields of wheat-And bring forth fruit, some an hundredfold. Christianity, truth, work for God, yield much fruit.
V. Human dependence is taught us by the cornfields; God giveth the increase. (G. T. Coster.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 23. Went through the corn fields] See Clarke on Mt 12:1.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
We had also this history in Mat 12:1-8, in our notes upon which we considered all those passages relating to it which this evangelist hath, for the explication of which I refer my reader thither. See Poole on “Mat 12:1“, and following verses to Mat 12:8. It refers to a story, 1Sa 21:1, where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest. Abiathar was his son, as appeareth by 1Sa 22:20, who escaped the slaughter of his fathers family upon the information of Doeg the Edomite, and followed David. It was in the latter end of the priesthood of Ahimelech, and probably Abiathar assisted his father in the execution of the office, and so suddenly succeeded, that Mark calls it the time of his priesthood. Besides that those words, A, do not necessarily signify in the days of Abiathar, as we translate it, no more than signifies in the carrying into captivity, but about the time, or near the time; which it was, for Ahimelech was presently after it (possibly within a few days) cut off, as we read, 1Sa 22:17,18; and Abiathar was a more noted man than his father Ahimelech, enjoying the priesthood more than forty years, and being the person who was made famous by carrying the ephod to David.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And it came to pass,…. The Vulgate Latin adds, “again”; and so Beza says it was read in one of his copies:
that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day, and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn, and to rub them, and get the grain out of them, and eat them;
[See comments on Mt 12:1].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Through the cornfields ( ). See on Mt 12:1. So Matt. and Lu 6:1. But Mark uses , to go along beside, unless (BCD) is accepted. Perhaps now on the edge, now within the grain. Mark uses also , to
make a way like the Latin iter facere, as if through the standing grain,
plucking the ears ( ). Work of preparing food the rabbis called it. The margin of the Revised Version has it correctly: They began to make their way plucking the ears of corn (grain, wheat or barley, we should say). See on Mt 12:1-8 for discussion of this passage, parallel also in Lu 6:15.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He went [ ] . Lit., went along beside, along the stretches of standing grain. Matthew and Luke use dia, through, as Mark does, but not para.
Began, as they went, to pluck [ ] . Lit., began to make a way plucking the ears. This does not mean that the disciples broke a way for themselves through the standing corn by plucking the ears, for in that event they would have been compelled to break down the stalks. They could not have made a way by plucking the heads of the grain. Mark, who uses Latin forms, probably adopted here the phrase iter facere, to make a way, which is simply to go. The same idiom occurs in the Septuagint, Jud 17:8; poihsai oJdon, as he journeyed. The offense given the Pharisees was the preparation of food on the Sabbath. Matthew says to eat, stating the motive, and Luke, rubbing with their hands, describing the act. See on Mt 12:2. The Rev. rightly retains the rendering of the A. V.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
JESUS, LORD OF THE SABBATH, V. 23-28
1) “And it came to pass,” (kai egeneto) “And it happened, occurred, or came to pass,” apparently, immediately after He (Jesus) had spoken the previous two parables to the scribes and Pharisees, Mar 2:16-22.
2) “That He went through the corn fields on the sabbath clay;” (auton en tois sabbasin peraporeuesthai dia ton sporimon) “As He leisurely passed through the cornfields on the sabbath,” on the seventh day sabbath of the Mosaic Law order, Exo 20:8-10; Mat 12:1-6.
3) “And His disciples began, as they went,” (kai hoi mathetai a utou erksanto hodonpoiein) “And His disciples, as they began to make (their way),- on a trip. The disciples went with and alongside , in company with Jesus, so that He could see what they did and were doing.
4) “To pluck the ears of corn.” (tillontes tous stachuas) “Also began to pluck the ears of corn,” as they crossed the cornfield, began to pluck the ripening grain (ears), from the stalks of corn. It appears that they walked a footpath across the field, with grain overlapping the path on either side. See also Mat 12:1-8; Luk 6:1-5.
TH E SABBATH FOR MAN
An association of twenty physicians voted yea, unanimously on the question: “is the position taken by Dr. Farre, in his testimony before the Committee of the British House of Commons, in your view, correct?” – – that men who labor six days a week will be more healthy and live longer, other things being equal, than those who labor seven; and that they will do more work, and do it in a better manner.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Mar. 2:23. Began, as they went, to pluck.A very good rendering, though free. Cp. Latin iter facere, French faire chemin. From LXX. in Jdg. 17:8, it is clear that the classical distinction between , to make a road, , to make a journey, must not be pressed in Hellenistic Greek. Such a piece of wanton mischief as to make a road through the corn by plucking the ears would never have been tolerated on any day, let alone the Sabbath. Nor would the action attributed to the disciples have sufficed to make a road: for that, they would have had not to break off the ears, but to break down the stalks.
Mar. 2:26. In the days of Abiathar the high priest.This seems, at first sight, to contradict 1Sa. 21:1-6, where Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, is mentioned as the high priest who gave the loaves to David. Many attempts have been made to reconcile the two passages; the most successful is, perhaps, that of Bede: There is no discrepancy, for both were there, when David came to ask for bread, and received it: that is to say, Ahimelech, the high priest, and Abiathar, his son; but Ahimelech having been slain by Saul (very shortly after), Abiathar fled to David, and became the companion of all his exile afterwards. When he came to the throne, Abiathar himself also received the rank of high priest, and the son became of much greater excellence than the father, and therefore was worthy to be mentioned as the high priest, even during his fathers lifetime. An elaborate and ably expressed argument in favour of another explanation will be found in McClellans New Testament, vol. i., pp. 671, 672.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mar. 2:23-28
(PARALLELS: Mat. 12:1-8; Luk. 6:1-5.)
The Sabbath and its Lord.The malignity of the Pharisees being now fully aroused by Christs disregard of their scrupulosities and conventionalities, they are henceforth to be found constantly dogging His steps, watching His every action, catching up His every word, in order that His influence with the people may be neutralised, or at least lessened. Especially on the Sabbath were they careful to shadow Him wherever He went, for there was no clearer proof of His divergence from current tradition than as regards the observance of the rest-day. On no other subject, says Dr. Edersheim, is Rabbinic teaching more painfully minute and more manifestly incongruous to its professed object. For if we rightly apprehend what underlay the complicated and intolerably burdensome laws of Pharisaic Sabbath observance, it was to secure, negatively, absolute rest from all labour, and, positively, to make the Sabbath a delight. The Mishnah includes Sabbath desecration among those most heinous crimes for which a man was to be stoned. This, then, was their first care: by a series of complicated ordinances to make a breach of the Sabbath rest impossible. The next object was, in a similarly external manner, to make the Sabbath a delight. A special Sabbath dress, the best that could be procured; the choicest food, even though a man had to work for it all the week, or public charity were to supply it,such were some of the means by which the day was to be honoured, and men were to find pleasure therein. The strangest stories are told how, by the purchase of the most expensive dishes, the pious poor had gained unspeakable merit, and obtained, even on earth, Heavens manifest reward. And yet, by the side of these and similar strange and sad misdirections of piety, we come also upon that which is touching, beautiful, and even spiritual. On the Sabbath there must be no mourning, for to the Sabbath applies this saying: The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and He addeth no sorrow with it (Pro. 10:22). The object which Rabbinism vainly strove to attain by the multiplication of restrictions, Christ set Himself to accomplish by a totally different method. Brushing aside all later accretions of traditionalism, He provoked the inquiry, What was the original law and design of the Sabbath?
I. The accusation by the Pharisees.Right gladly would they have accused the disciples of theft, had there been the slightest vestige of excuse for doing so; but the law made express provision for the satisfying of hunger when passing through corn-fields (Deu. 23:25). But that any one should take advantage of this merciful provision on the Sabbath horrified themor they pretended it did. According to them, such an action involved at least two sins: the plucking the ears was equivalent to reaping, the rubbing in the hands to sifting or winnowing! And yet, had the owner of the field wanted, in harvest-time, to shift any of his sheaves, he had only to lay on each a spoon in common use, when, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! To men who spent their time in the invention and study of puerilities of this kind, it mattered nothing that the disciples were really hungry, and that abstinence would occasion far greater unrest of body and mind than the infinitesimal exertion of plucking and rubbing a few ears of corn. Sabbath means restrest of spirit as well as of bodyrest from all that is carnal and selfish, and the surrender of the whole being to God in spiritual worship. But these zealots were restless in their endeavours to overcome One whom they hated, and their hearts were rankling with jealousy and envy, instead of swelling with praise and prayer. How pitiful it is when men seek to substitute elaborate ceremonial for the sacrifice of the inner being!
II. The answer of our Lord.Christ meets the objectors on their own ground, and shows how, even if it were admitted that the disciples had broken the letter of the law (which they had not done, but only the Rabbinic gloss), they were amply justified in doing so. An eminent scholar, on being asked his opinion of certain classical editors, once replied, They know the rules; but they do not know when the rules are right, and when they are wrong. So it was with these Pharisees. They had every minutest detail of the Mosaic Law at their fingers ends, so far as the mere letter was concerned; and even their excessive zeal in interpreting and expanding its provisions need not have led to any serious harm, had they only exercised the same care with respect to its spiritual side. But this they had now lost sight of altogether. Christ, therefore, in His reply, ignoring all minor issues, insistence upon which would only have been certain to prejudice and embitter them still further, brings them face to face with the great principle which they themselves admittedthat when two laws clash, the higher one overrides the lower. A single Rabbinic prohibition is not to be heeded, they said, where a graver matter is in question. Bearing this in mind, we can see how impregnable was the position that Christ took up on behalf of His disciples. David and his followers, when at extremity, had eaten the shewbread, which it was not lawful for them to eat, but only for the priests, and yet they were held blameless, Jewish tradition vindicating their conduct on the plea that danger of life superseded the law. From St. Matthew (Mat. 12:5) we learn that our Lord followed this up with another argument drawn from the Temple usages. What, He asks, were the multiplied sacrifices, and incense-burnings, and washings, but so many breaches of the letter of the law? Had they not given birth to the proverb, There is no Sabbatical rest observed in the sanctuary?and yet no one ever thought of blaming the priests. Nor does any blame attach to the disciples, who were but acting upon the same principlethat the greater obligation overrules the lesser, that all ceremonial observance is subordinate to human necessity, that God prefers mercy to sacrifice.
III. The true law of Sabbath observance.
1. The Sabbath was made. The setting apart of one day in seven for rest from labour and special religious effort is no haphazard arrangement of human invention, but Gods own beneficent gift to His weary creatures. It is stamped with Divine sanctity and authority.
2. The Sabbath was made for manto subserve his highest interests and promote his spiritual welfare. Now since man is a complex creature, with a tripartite nature (1Th. 5:23), it is necessary to provide for him as such, not ignoring either his physical or his social or his religious needs, otherwise the end for which the Sabbath was made will be frustrated. It is related in the life of a pious Presbyterian minister of this generation, how his home looked upon a public park in the suburbs of a crowded city, and how, when he saw some of his fellow-citizens taking a quiet walk for the sake of fresh air and innocent relaxation on a Sunday afternoon, he wondered that the earth did not open her mouth and swallow them up! The same spirit was manifested by the inhabitants of St. Kilda a few years ago, when they subjected some shipwrecked people to agonies of hunger rather than permit a ship, with provisions on board, to land on what they called the Sabbath, i.e. the Lords Day! Well might they have been asked, Have ye never read what the Lords disciples did, when they had need and were hungry; how, going through the corn-fields on the Sabbath, they plucked the ears of corn, and rubbed them in their hands, and ate; and how the Lord defended them for so doing, and declared that the Sabbath is not mans master, but his servant? And as to the other instance mentioned of Sabbatic intolerance, may we not say, with Dean Luckock, that it is not only permissible but a manifest duty to furnish the masses with the means of bodily recreation, and to draw them from their squalid homes into pure air which will invigorate the frame; and no less a duty to elevate their tastes, to offer them, as far as possible, variety of scene and relief from the monotony of their daily drudgery?
IV. The supremacy of the Son of Man over the Sabbath.The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath; and as its Lord He exercises the right to eliminate from it all that is merely Judaic, and to re-establish it in its original simplicity and benignity. During His earthly ministry He makes it the day not of idle self-contemplation, but of gracious words and blessed deeds. Then after deathHis mission to the spirits in Hades having been accomplished on the Sabbath (1Pe. 3:18-20; 1Pe. 4:6)He chooses the first day of the week for His resurrection; and that day has ever since been observed by His followers as the Lords DayHis peculiar possession, and their peculiar privilegea day which is a thousand times more precious and sacred to them than the Sabbath could ever be to a Jew. The Sabbath was but the shadow of good things yet to come; on the Lords Day especially (though far from exclusively) the believer realises that these good things have now come, and that he is already a partaker of them in Christ. He therefore regards the weekly rest-day as a boon of unspeakable value, for which he is indebted to his Saviour. To him, indeed, all days are equally holy: he does not imagine for a moment that God requires of him a better service or a purer soul on one than on another; but while striving to serve God truly all the days of his life, he thanks God particularly for every opportunity afforded him of withdrawing for a season from the turmoil of worldly business, and devoting himself without distraction to the things of the Lord.
Mar. 2:23-28. The Sabbath and the Lords Day.I. The first principle embodied in the Lords Day is the duty of consecrating a certain proportion of time, at least one-seventh, to the especial service of God. This principle is common to the Jewish Sabbath and to the Christian Lords Day. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day means for us Christians, Remember that thou keep holy one day in seven. Keep the day holy; consecrate it. Such consecration implies two things: a separation of the thing consecrated from all others, and the communication to it of a quality of holiness or purity. To this idea of the especial consecration of a section of time, it is objected that in a true Christian life all time is consecrated. The answer is that the larger obligation of love is not ignored because the smaller one of duty is insisted on. All a Christians time is properly consecrated time; but practically, in many cases, none would be consecrated unless an effort were made to mark a certain proportion of it by a special consecration. The case is parallel to that of prayer. Our Lord says that men ought always to pray, and not to faint. The apostle says, Pray without ceasing. And the life of a good Christian is, no doubt, a continuous prayer: the spirit of prayer penetrates and hallows it; each duty is intertwined with acts of the soul which raise it above this earthly scene to the throne and presence of Christ. But, for all that, in all Christian lives stated times of prayer, private as well as public, are practically necessary, if the practice of prayer is to be consistently maintained. And in like manner the especial consecration of one day in seven does not involve an implied rejection of the rights of Jesus Christ over all Christian time. It is like those small payments known to the law, which do not profess to give an equivalent for that which they represent, but only technically to acknowledge a much larger claim; it implies that all our time belongs to God, although, considering our weakness, He graciously accepts a prescribed instalment or section of it. And apart from its importance in the life of the servants of God, the public setting apart of a certain measure of time to Gods service is a witness to His claims borne before the world, and calculated to strike the imaginations of men. From this point of view, our English Sunday, whatever may be said about mistakes in the detail of its observance, is a national blessing. It brings the existence and claims of God before the minds even of those who do not make a good use of it. And religious foreigners have not seldom told us that it fills them with envy and admiration; and that we shall do well to guard that which, once lost, is certain to be well-nigh, if not altogether, irrecoverable.
II. A second principle represented in the Lords Day is the periodical suspension of human toil. This is closely connected with that of the consecration of time. In order to make the day, by this prohibition, unlike other days, in order to make room for the acknowledgment of God on it, ordinary occupations are suspended. Here again we have a second principle common to the Jewish Sabbath and to the Christian Lords Day. In the Old Testament a variety of particular occupations are explicitly forbidden on the Sabbath: sowing and reaping, gathering wood and kindling a fire for cooking, holding markets, every kind of trade, pressing grapes, carrying any sort of burden. In a later age the Pharisees added largely to these prohibitions. They held it unlawful to pluck an ear of corn in passing through a corn-field, or to assist and relieve the sick; although they ruled that an animal which had fallen into a ditch might be helped out, that guests might be invited to an entertainment, and that a child of eight days old might be circumcised. There were thirty-nine Rabbinical prohibitions on the Sabbath, of which one limited a Sabbath-days journey to two thousand cubits, and another forbade killing even the most dangerous vermin, while a third proscribed the use of a wooden leg, or a crutch, or a purse. These and other prohibitions illustrate the tendency of mere law to become, sooner or later, through excessive technicality, the caricature and the ruin of moral principle. And it was against these Pharisaic perversions of the Sabbath that our Lord protested by act and word, reminding His countrymen that the Sabbath was made for the moral good of man, and not man for the later legal theory of the Sabbath. But the broad principle of abstinence from labour, however misrepresented in the later Jewish practice, was itself sacred; and it passed into the Christian observance of the Lords Day. We see this plainly in notices of the observance in the early times of the Christian Church. Thus Tertullian, writing at the end of the second century, calls the day both Sunday and the Lords Day; says that it is, a day of joy, and that to fast on it is wrong; yet adds that business is put off on it, lest we give place to the devil. And thus when, under Constantine, the Imperial Government had acknowledged the faith of Christ, and Christianity made itself felt in the principles of legislation, provision was very soon made for the observance of the Lords Day. Even four years before the Council of Nica, Constantine issued an edict ordering the judges, the town populations, the artists and tradesmen of all kinds, to cease from labour on the Lords Day. He allows agricultural labour to go on, if the safety of crops or the health of cattle depends on it. And when we examine the Codes of the Emperors Theodosius and Justinian, in which the experience and traditions of the great Roman lawyers are combined with and modified by the softening influences of Christianity, we find that the observance of the Lords Day is carefully provided for. Works of necessity, whether civil or agricultural, are allowed; others are forbidden. Public spectacles of all kinds and the games of the circus are suppressed. And the great teachers of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries did what they could to second the imperial legislation by exhorting the faithful to abstain from works or sights which profaned the Holy Day of the Christian week. This insistence on a day of freedom from earthly labour is not inconsistent with a recognition of the dignity and the claims of labour. On the contrary, it protects labour, by arresting the excessive expenditure of human strength; and it raises and consecrates labour by leading the workmans mind to acknowledge the Source and Support of his exertions. It is sometimes asked why this abstinence from labour should be dictated to us; why each man cannot make a Sunday for himself, when his strength or health demands it. The answer is, Because, in a busy, highly worked community, unless all are to abstain from work, none will abstain; since, in point of fact, none can afford to abstain. This is the principle of the Bank holidays: the State comes in to do for labour four times a year, on a small scale, what the Church does on a large scale every week; it essays to make a general rest from work possible by an external sanction. If the sanction of the Sunday rest from toil were to be withdrawn, it would, in a civilisation like ours, go hard, first with labour, and then, at no distant interval, with capital. The dignity and obligation of labour are sufficiently recognised in the precept, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; and the health and happiness and moral well-being of the labourer are secured by a seventh day, in which the labourer is to do no manner of work.
III. Thus the Sabbath and the Lords Day agree in affirming two principles: the hallowing a seventh part of time, and the obligation of abstinence from servile work on one day in seven. But are the days identical? May we rightly call the Lords Day the Sabbath? These questions must be answered in the negative. Observe that the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lords Day, while agreeing in affirming two principles, differ in two noteworthy respects. First, they differ, as has already been implied, in being kept on distinct days. The Sabbath was kept on the last day of the week: the Lords Day is kept on the first. The change was made because there was an imperative reason for making it. For the Lords Day and the Sabbath Day differ, secondly, in the reason or motive for observing them. The Sabbath was the weekly commemoration of the finished work of God. It brought before the mind of the Jew the ineffable majesty of the Great Creator, between whom and the noblest work of His hands there yawns an impassable abyss. Thus the Sabbath observance, apart from its directly sanctifying effect upon individual life, was the great protection to the Jews against the idolatry with which they came in contact in Egypt, in Phnicia, in Babylon, and against the Greek modes of thought which tried them so sorely at Alexandria and in Palestine under the Macedonian kings of a later time. The Christian motive for observing the Lords Day is the resurrection of Christ from the dead. That truth is to the Christian Creed what the creation of the world out of nothing is to the Jewish. The Lords Day marks the completed Redemption, as the Sabbath had marked the completed Creation. The Resurrection is also the fundamental truth on which Christianity rests; and thus it is as much insisted on by the Christian apostles as is Gods creation of all things by the Jewish prophets. Not, of course, that the creation of all things by God is less precious to the Christian than to the Jew; but it is more taken for granted. In Christian eyes the creation of the world of nature is eclipsed by the creation of the world of grace; and of this last creation the Resurrection is the warrant. The Jewish Sabbath stands in the same relation to the Lords Day as does Circumcision to Christian Baptism, as does the Paschal Lamb to the Holy Communion, as does the Law to the Gospel. It is a shadow of a good thing to come. It is only perpetuated by being transfigured, or rather it is so transfigured as to have parted with its identity. Christians stand no longer at the foot of Sinai, but by the empty tomb in the garden outside Jerusalem.
IV. The cessation of ordinary work is not enjoined upon Christians only that they may while away the time, or spend it in aimless self-pleasing, or in something worse. The Lords Day is the day upon which our Lord Jesus Christ has a first claim. On this great day every instructed Christian thinks of Him as completing the work of our redemption; as vindicating His character as a Teacher of absolute truth; as triumphing over His enemies; as conquering death in that nature which had hitherto always been subject to its empire; as designing, now that He has overcome the sharpness of death, to open the kingdom of heaven to all believers. It is unlike any other in the week; and the sense of this finds its natural expression in prayer and praise. A well-spent Lords Day should always begin with that supreme act of Christian worship in which we meet Jesus verily and indeed, the only public service known to the early and Apostolic Churchthe Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Redeemer. What the practice of our fathers in the faith was within a few years after the apostles had gone to their rest, we learn from the celebrated letter of Pliny to Trajan. The Christians, he says, are accustomed to meet together on a stated day, before it is light, and to sing hymns to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by a Sacrament, not for any wicked purpose; but never to commit fraud, theft, or adulterynever to break their word, nor to refuse, when called upon, to deliver up any trust. This was his impression as a heathen, looking at the sacred service from without, and gathering its nature from Christian language about it which he imperfectly understood. How Sunday was kept by Christians about the year 140 is very fully described by Justin Martyr. He says that on that day there was an assembly of all Christians who lived either in town or country; that the writings of the apostles and prophets were read; and that prayer was offered, and alms were collected, and the Holy Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood was celebrated. As we descend the stream of time, illustrations become more numerous. But in the early Church of Christ it was taken for granted that a Christian would observe the Lords Day, first of all, by taking part in that solemn Sacrament and Service which the Lord had Himself ordained. Those who begin their Sundays with the Holy Communion know one of the deepest meanings of that promise, They that seek Me early shall find Me. Not that it is wise or reverent to suppose that all the religious duties of a Sunday can be properly discharged before breakfast, and that the rest of the day may be spent as we like. No Christian whose heart is in the right place will think this. Later opportunities of public prayer and of instruction in the faith and duty of a Christian will be made the most of, as may be possible for each. Especially should an effort be made on every Sunday in the year to learn some portion of the will of God more perfectly than before; some truth or aspect of His revelation of Himself in the Gospel; some Christian duty, as taught by the example or the words of Christ. Without a positive effort of this kind a Sunday is a lost Sunday: we shall think of it thus in eternity. Where there is the will to seek truth and wisdom there is no difficulty about the way: books, friends, sermons, are at hand. We have but to be in earnest, and all will follow. When the religious obligations of Sunday have been complied with, there are duties of human brotherhood which may well find a place in it: kind deeds and words to friends, visits to the sick, acts of consideration for the poor, are in keeping with the spirit of the day. Above all, it should be made a bright as well as a solemn day for children: first solemn, but then and always bright, so that in their after-life they may look back on the Sundays of childhood as its happiest days. And in itself there would be no harm if, for those who live in towns, museums and picture-galleries could be open on Sundays, just as the fields and the gardens are open to those who live in the country; for Art, like Nature, is to each one of us what we bring to it. The danger of such proposals is that, to realise them, Sunday labour must be employed, in some cases on a very considerable scale; and this would too easily lead the way to its employment for other and general purposes, and so to the abandonment of an essential characteristic of the Lords Day.Canon Liddon.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Mar. 2:23. Lessons.
1. Christ never bribes men to become His disciples. Although when occasion arose, He would work a miracle to feed a multitude, He here leaves His followers to stay their hunger as best they may.
2. It is not said that Christ Himself partook of this frugal meal. Probably He refrained from doing so, at the cost of personal discomfort, rather than give offence to His enemies.
3. But while thus declining to use His own right to the full, He will not hinder others from the enjoyment of theirs. On this principle St. Paul afterwards acted (1 Corinthians 10).
The disciples were poor; but they preferred to suffer hunger with Christ rather than enjoy affluence without Him.Heubner.
Mar. 2:24. Lessons.He who has only the knowledge without the spirit of the law very often opposes when he thinks he is defending it.
2. Pharisaical pride makes men set themselves up for judges of everything, and require an account of everything to be given them.
3. When a man is once full of himself, he decides confidently, especially-when it is to condemn others.
4. Those who love to domineer are not content to exercise their authority upon their own disciples, but would fain bring those of others under their dominion.P. Quesnel.
Why did not these Pharisees give them bread, and so prevent their doing that to which they objected? We might also fairly ask, How came they to see the disciples? Did they not break the Sabbath by setting a watch over them?
Mar. 2:25. Superficial reading prejudicial.An old preacher was once heard to say, The Word has mighty free course among many nowadays, for it goes in at one of their ears and out at the other. So it seems to be with some readersthey read a very great deal, and yet they do not read anything. Their eye glances, but their mind never rests. The soul does not light upon the truth and stay there. It flits over the landscape as a bird might do, but builds no nest. Such reading is worse than useless; it is positively prejudicial to the mind.
Mar. 2:27. The Sabbath was made for man.
1. For man as manwhether Jew or Gentile. It was set apart by Divine sanction from the beginning, not merely from the time of Moses, when God only reminded His people of that which had existed long before. The law of six days work and one days rest is wrought into the very constitution of humanity, and cannot be ignored with impunity.
2. For man as he isnot for man in a fancied state of perfection. To worship God every day in spirit and truth, to raise each day to the level of a Sabbath, is no doubt the goal to be aimed at; but if such a commandment had been given to the Jews, and no day specially separated from the others, they would have ended by reducing all to a dead level of worldliness. They needed the Sabbath as a help to their devotion, and we in this busy age need it too. From the consecration of one day to God, we learn by degrees to consecrate to Him every day, every hour.
Reasons for Sabbath observance.The following are the reasons given in the Old Testament for the observance of the Sabbath:
1. In memory of the Creation, and of Gods rest from His work (Exo. 20:11).
2. To protect those whose time is at the disposal of others (Deu. 5:14).
3. In memory of the deliverance of Gods people (Deu. 5:15).
4. As a sign between God and His people of their sanctification by Him (Eze. 20:12). So now the weekly Lords Day, with its Eucharistic celebration, is the great testimony to the Churchs perpetual union with her once crucified but now reigning Head.
The consecration of one day in seven to uses other and more sacred than those of the rest, is ordained by a law which lies a long way behind either the religion of Christ or the religion of Moses. That law is embedded in the very constitution, physical, mental, and moral, of human nature; and as human nature has awakened to its consciousness and its significance, just in that proportion has it ennobled and advanced itself. The first nations in the family of nations to-day are those who, whether early and quickly, or slowly and late, have learned to hallow one day and keep it sacred; and the loftiest achievements in arms, in literature, in science, in philanthropy, in missionary enterprise, and in social advancement, belong to that Anglo-Saxon people whose observance of Sunday is to-day the wonder and the admiration of every intelligent traveller.Bishop H. C. Potter.
The Continental Sunday a failure.It is one of the most remarkable facts of our time that those older nations from which some of us propose to borrow our habit of disregard for the Lords Day are striving at this very moment with most impressive earnestness to restore the earlier sacredness of that day. In Germany, in Switzerland, and in France there are already organisations of serious and thoughtful men who are seeking to banish the Continental Sunday. They have seen, on the one hand, as any one may see in France to-day, that the removal of the sacred sanctions, which with us hold the first day of the week in a kind of chaste reserve, have eventuated not merely in degrading it to the level of a vulgar holiday, but also of degrading and enslaving him for whom its privileges were, most of all, designedthe wearied, over-worked, and poorly-paid labouring man. He is a person out of whom the most is to be got, and if he can work six days he may as well work the seventh also, so long as there is nothing to forbid it. Such a condition of things may not directly threaten those of us who are protected by wealth from the necessities of daily labour; but if ours is this more favoured condition, all the more do we owe it to our brother-man who is less favoured to see to it that he shall have every sanction with which the law can furnish him to guard his day of rest from being perverted and revolutionised into a day of toil. And if he himself does not see that the more we assimilate Sunday to other days by the amusements, the occupations, the teaching and reading and thinking with which we fill it, the greater is the danger that ultimately we shall lose it altogether, the more earnestly are we bound to strive to disseminate those sounder ideas which shall set this first day of the week and its devout observance before our fellow-men and women of the labouring classes in its true light, and so help and teach them how not to lose but to keep it. We may declaim as we please in behalf of a philosophy which makes all days holy to the universal worship of humanity by making no day holy to the worship of a personal God; but the decay of stated times and seasons for the offering of that worship presages a day when neither God nor man, neither life nor property, neither human weakness nor human needs, have any rights nor any scantiest respect. To learn that fact we need go back no further than the history of France in 1788.Ibid.
Mar. 2:28. Son of Man.
1. Glorious name that, which Jesus Himself loved mostindeed, we may say to the exclusion of all othersSon of MAN; thus identified with the whole race in its joys and sorrows and manifold experiences: a sympathetic bond of union linking to Himself each member of the wide human family.
2. Christthe Incarnate Godhad not only assumed the form and designation of the Son of Man, but, as such, He belonged to no exclusive or distinctive nationality. He claimed and asserted a worldwide brotherhood. The sun in the material heavens is the illuminator of no one specific region or section, but of the entire earth: every nation, and kindred, and people, and tongue are served heirs-to his radiance nothing hid from the heat thereof. So was Christ the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He took in all climes, all blood, all ages, all civilisations.J. R. Macduff, D.D.
Christs lordship over the Sabbath.Nothing can show the Divine nature of our Lord more clearly than that He is above such a law of God, so that He should modify it, relax it, change it at His pleasure. He exercised but a small part of this authority when He freed His disciples from the yoke of its burdensome Pharisaic observance. He exercised His lordship over the day far more royally when He by His Spirit made the day of His resurrection the weekly religious festival of His Church. By this He gave it altogether a new character. Henceforth it is a day not of mere rest, but of renewed lifethe life of His own resurrection; and so its characteristic ordinance is not the slaying of beasts, but the life-giving celebration of the Sacrament of His own Risen Body.M. F. Sadler.
The freedom of Christs service.The service of God, and the service of the Temple, by universal consent, superseded the Sabbath law. But Christ was greater than the Temple, and His service more truly that of God, and higher than that of the outward Templeand the Sabbath was intended for man, to serve God: therefore Christ and His service were superior to the Sabbath law. Thus much would be intelligible to these Pharisees, although they would not receive it, because they believed not on Him as the Sent of God. But to us the words mean more than this. They preach not only that the service of Christ is that of God, but that, even more than in the Temple, all of work or of liberty is lawful which this service requires. We are free while we are doing anything for Christ: God loves mercy, and demands not sacrifice; His sacrifice is the service of Christ, in heart, and life, and work. We are not free to do anything we please; but we are free to do anything needful or helpful, while we are doing any service to Christ. He is the Lord of the Sabbath, whom we serve in and through the Sabbath. And even this is significant, that, when designating Himself Lord of the Sabbath, it is as the Son of Man. It shows that the narrow Judaistic form regarding the day and the manner of observance is enlarged into the wider Law, which applies to all humanity. Under the New Testament the Sabbath has, as the Church, become Catholic, and its Lord is Christ as the Son of Man, to whom the Body Catholic offers the acceptable service of heart and life.A. Edersheim, D.D.
Christians are lords of the Sabbath.We also are, in our measure, lords of the Sabbath, which was made for man; we have a Christian liberty, which, remember, implies a deep Christian responsibility, to regulate our method of observing the Sabbath, under Gods general laws, so as to make it to ourselves not a burden, but an exceeding spiritual blessing. This liberty indeed is ours, only in proportion as we are living as real members of Christ, having His mind, and in our deeds being like Him. So far as we are sinful we forfeit our privileges, even as a life of slavery makes men unfit for freedom; we may require the constraints of a law, and lose the full enjoyment, the perfect blessing, of the Lords Day. But still Christs words show us what we should aim at and desire; they teach, us how to look on our Sundays, as blessings for which we may thank God; and stir us up to use them, not by any formal rules, still less by any gloom or compulsion, but freely and thankfully, for our blessing and happiness both of body and soul. They were made for us; and we, by Gods grace, are lords over them, only under Him who is God and Lord of all.Bishop Barry.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2
Mar. 2:27. Benefit of the rest-day.Man! man! this is the great creator of wealth. The difference between the soil of Campania and Spitzbergen is insignificant compared with the difference presented by two countriesthe one inhabited by men full of moral and physical vigour, the other by beings plunged in an intellectual decrepitude. Hence it is that we are not impoverished, but on the contrary enriched by this seventh day, which we have for so many years devoted to rest. This day is not lost. While the machinery is stopped, while the car rests on the road, while the treasury is silent, while the smoke ceases to rise from the chimney of the factory, the nation enriches itself none the less than during the working days of the week. Man, the machine of all machines, the one by the side of which all the inventions of the Watts and the Arkwrights are as nothing, is recuperating and gaining strength so well, that on Monday he returns to his work with his mind clearer, with more courage for his work, and with renewed vigour. I will never believe that that which renders a people stronger, wiser, and better can ever turn to its impoverishment.In The Life of Frank Buckland, the eminent naturalist, who devoted himself so thoroughly to the scientific and practical study of the river and sea-fisheries of Great Britain, there is the following testimony to the value of Sabbath rest: March 1866.I am now working from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and then a bit in the eveningfourteen hours a day; but, thank God, it does not hurt me. I should, however, collapse if it were not for Sunday. The machinery has time to get cool, the mill-wheel ceases to patter the water, the mill-head is ponded up, and the superfluous water let off by an easy, quiet current, which leads to things above.In one of the most densely populated parts of the city a gentleman lately visited the house of a poor, hard-working, infidel cobbler. The man was busy at his last, and had scarce time to look up at his unwelcome visitor. That is hard work. It is, sir. For how many hours a day have you to labour heretwelve? Yes, and more, sir. I am never off this seat under a fourteen or fifteen hours spell of it. That is sore toil for a bit of bread. Indeed it is, sir; and very thankful am I when the weeks end comes. What would become of me, and the likes of me, without that rest? And who, friend, think you, gave you that rest? Came it by accident, or arrangement, or how? There came no answer to that: the cobbler hung his head; the man was honest; the sceptic was ashamed.An agricultural labourer named Algre, about sixty years of age, was arrested during the French Revolution, and put in prison for not having worked on a Sunday. A week after his release he presented himself, dressed in his Sunday clothes, before the Committee. On being asked what he wanted, he replied that he was getting old, and that when he had worked all the week he was tired out and wanted rest, so that if he went to labour on Sunday he should rob his employer, and that therefore he preferred to come and be put in prison. The Committee, who no doubt thought the man had come to make a denunciation, were nonplussed at the strange humour of this singular request, shrugged their shoulders, and bade their petitioner go about his business.William Wilberforce said, I can truly declare that to me the Sabbath has been invaluable. When Sir Samuel Romilly, Solicitor-General during Foxs administration, committed suicide, Mr. Wilberforce said, If he had suffered his mind to enjoy such occasional remission, it is highly probable that the strings of life would never have snapped from over-tension. The celebrated Castlereagh, who was Foreign Secretary in 1812, committed suicide in 1822. Wilberforce said, Poor fellow! he was certainly derangedthe effect probably of continual wear of the mind and the non-observance of the Sabbath.After all, the question is not so much one of the safety and well-being of life and property as of the higher well-being of the personal soul. A great statesman is reported to have said to one who sought of him an interview concerning secular matters on the Lords Day: I must keep one day in which to realise what I am and where I am going!A world without a Sabbath, says Mr. Beecher, would be like a man without a smile, like a summer without flowers, like a homestead without a garden. It is the joyous day of the whole week.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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? Wasnt 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.
Wouldnt 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 ACCOUNTSMat. 12:1-8; Luk. 6:1-5.
OUTLINE1. Walking on the sabbath, Mar. 2:23. 2. The criticism of the Pharisees, Mar. 2:24. 3. Jesus answer, Mar. 2:25-26. 4. The application, Mar. 2:27-28.
ANALYSIS 2:23-28
I.
WALKING ON THE SABBATH Mar. 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. Mar. 2:24.
1.
Careful to watch for mistakes.
2.
objected to harvesting grain on the sabbath.
III.
JESUS ANSWER. Mar. 2:25-26.
1.
They were unaware of the record and meaning of the scripture.
2.
Davids exception would surely allow for theirs.
IV.
THE APPLICATION. Mar. 2:27-28.
1.
The true purpose of the sabbath.
2.
The claim to Divine prerogative.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
WALKING ON THE SABBATH. Mar. 2:23.
Mar. 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. Deu. 23:25 makes provision for the poor and permits eating a few ears from the neighbors field. We do not know if this was a wheat field or a barley field.
II.
THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. Mar. 2:24.
Mar. 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 Exo. 20:10. The infraction of the law was a matter of legalistic interpretation.
III.
JESUS ANSWER, Mar. 2:25-26.
Mar. 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 1Sa. 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 Davids 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 Davids 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 Davids time, and the one that was chiefly associated with Davids 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 copyists error. The law of the shewbread is given at Lev. 24:5-9. Our Lords 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 weeks shew-bread was just being changed for the fresh, and this was done on the Sabbath (1Sa. 21:6 with Lev. 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 Mar. 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 (Rom. 13:10), was to them utterly unknown.
IV.
THE APPLICATION. Mar. 2:27-28
Mar. 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 mans 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 mans 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.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(23-28) And it came to pass.See Notes on Mat. 12:1-8.
As they went . . .More literally, they began to make a path (or perhaps, to make their way), plucking the ears of corn.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, Mar 2:23-28 .
(See notes on Mat 12:1-8.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it happened that he was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields, and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.’
What the disciples were doing in plucking the corn would have been seen as within their rights on any other day of the week, as long as they did not use a sickle (Deu 23:25), and it is not for that that they would be criticised. The problem lay in the fact that they did it on the Sabbath day and that what they were doing was seen as reaping and threshing corn, both forbidden on the Sabbath (Exo 34:21). The Rabbis had at various times laid down a considerable number of regulations about the Sabbath in order to prevent it being violated and this was included among them. And it was not just a matter of being awkward. They genuinely believed that such activity could have awful consequences.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Son of Man Is Lord of the Sabbath (2:23-28).
In this incident we are provided with an example of how the Pharisees sought to cling to the old, while Jesus was introducing the new. The Pharisees believed that there were certain things that epitomised Israel’s covenant with God, and that it would be by observing these fully that they would help to issue in God’s Kingly Rule. These included washing rituals which kept them ‘clean’ from defilement by an outer world which did not observe God’s requirement to be ritually ‘clean’; strictly tithing all their possessions; avoiding being involved with all who did not subscribe to their ideas, and strictly observing the Sabbath. These things had become the be all and end all of their lives. Thus when they saw the disciples of the new prophet flouting the Sabbath rules as laid down by the Scribes, they were both horrified and furious. It went against all in which they believed. This prophet was, in their eyes, actually delaying the time when God’s Kingly Rule would come, so mechanical were they in their views. And when Jesus brought out that as the new David He took a different view of the Sabbath, and supported it by citing the Scriptures, it was beyond what they could take. It was one thing for David to behave like this (no one had ever criticised David for it), it was quite another for this upstart ‘prophet’ to do it. And this was especially so when He claimed as the Son of Man to be Lord of the Sabbath (although they might not have been sure at this stage whether He was referring to Himself or someone else).
Analysis.
a
b And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why do they on the Sabbath day what is not lawful?” (Mar 2:24).
c And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him? How, in the passage headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’, he entered into the house of God, and ate the shewbread which it is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and gave also to those who were with him?” (Mar 2:25-26).
b And he said, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mar 2:27).
a “So that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mar 2:28).”
Note that in ‘a’ we have described what happened on the Sabbath, and in the parallel it could not be criticised because the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath. In ‘b’ the Pharisees charge the disciples with doing what was not lawful on the Sabbath, and in the parallel Jesus points out that man was not made in order to establish and preserve the Sabbath, but that God’s purpose for the Sabbath was that it might benefit man. Centrally in ‘c’ He demonstrates that as the new David He has the authority to shape God’s Law.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jesus Is Questioned About the Sabbath Day ( Mat 12:1-8 , Luk 6:1-5 ) In Mar 2:23-28 Jesus is questioned by the Pharisees about the Sabbath day.
Mar 2:23 Comments – Note that the Mosaic Law allowed them to pluck the grain in some else’s field and eat it.
Deu 23:25, “When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Lord of the Sabbath. Mar 2:23-28
v. 23. And it came to pass that He went through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day; and His disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
v. 24. And the Pharisees said unto Him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath-day that which is not lawful?
v. 25. And He said unto them, Have ye never read what David did when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him,
v. 26. how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
v. 27. And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;
v. 28. therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath
The Pharisees did not abate their jealous, hawk-like watch over Jesus and His disciples for one minute. And the Lord, on His part, in no way attempted to escape from them. The lessons which He wished to convey to them would be brought out all the sooner with their vigilant presence ever near. Jesus and His disciples, on a Sabbath, were taking a walk through the fields of grain, which were just about ready for harvest. There were in those days simple, rough footpaths that have existed in Palestine since time immemorial. “If a landowner wished to raise grain in a field through which one of these paths ran, he plowed up to the very edge of the narrow path and put in his seed. ” It was along one of these paths that the little company of Jesus was strolling, they were making their way slowly. And where the grain had encroached upon the path, the disciples, being hungry, pulled up the stalks. This they continued, as they went, and then rubbed the ears between the hands to extract the kernels, which they ate. Here the Pharisees complained to the Lord about the disciples, although their accusation implied a criticism of the Master for permitting the pulling of the stalks, which they identified with reaping, and the rubbing of the ears, which they identified with threshing. But Jesus defended His disciples by referring the Pharisees to the example of David, who, in a similar situation, when he and his men were in need, did not hesitate to take the showbread out of the hands of Abiathar, the high priest, and to distribute the cakes among his men, 1Sa 21:6. Ordinarily, only the priests were permitted to eat this bread, Lev 24:8-9, but in a case of necessity, above all, love is the fulfillment of the Law, and no one ever thought of censuring David for his action. Note: Either Ahimelech bore the additional name Abiathar, or father and son officiated together at Nobe, in this manner that David received the showbread from Ahimelech with the distinct sanction of Abiathar. The conclusion which Jesus draws from this story is brief and to the point: The Sabbath is given to man, and not man to the Sabbath. The Sabbath, as God intended it for the Jews, was to serve them as a day of rest, but His intention never had been to make them slaves of its observance and to bind them with fetters that would render life unpleasant for them. The Sabbath is thus only a means to an end. And so far as the whole question is concerned, this truth stands for all times. Jesus, as the Son of Man, as the divine-human Lord of all, has the right to abrogate the Old Testament Sabbath if He so chooses. The old injunctions concerning sacrifices, new moons, Sabbaths, etc. , were in force till He came. But the body itself is of Christ, Col 2:16-17. The Third Commandment enjoins only so much upon the Christians that they gladly hear and learn the Word of God. He that does this much keeps the Third Commandment in the sense of the New Testament and need not be worried by the Sabbath fanatics of these latter days.
Summary. Jesus heals a paralytic, calls the publican Levi to be His disciple, gives a short discourse concerning tasting and the difference between the old and the new dispensation, and declares Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mar 2:23-28 . See on Mat 12:1-8 . Comp. Luk 6:1-5 , who follows Mark in the order of events, which in Matthew is different.
] not: to walk on, ambulare (Vulgate, Luther, and many others, including de Wette), so that would refer indefinitely to other objects, but to pass along by . Comp. Mat 27:39 ; Mar 11:20 ; Mar 15:29 . Jesus passed through the corn-fields alongside of these , so that the way that passed through the fields led Him on both sides along by them. Just so Mar 9:30 , and Deu 2:4 .
. . .] is usually explained as though it stood: , to pluck the ears of corn as they went . Against the mode of expression, according to which the main idea lies in the participial definition (see Hermann, ad Aj. 1113; Electr. 1305; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 136; Phil. p. 58), there would be in itself nothing, according to classical examples, to object; but in the N. T. this mode of expression does not occur (Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 443 f.]), and here in particular the active is opposed to it, since is always viam sternere , and (as also ) is iter facere . See Viger. ed. Herm. p. 116; Kypke, I. p. 154; Krebs, p. 81; Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 320]. Comp. also (Xen. Anab. v. 1. 14; Dem. 1274, 26, frequently in the LXX.) and ; Khner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 8. The assumption that Mark had missed this distinction is wholly without exegetical warrant, as is also the recourse to a Latinism (Krebs). The only correct explanation is: they began to make a way (to open a path) by plucking the ears of corn ; not, as Bretschneider and Fritzsche alter the meaning of the words: “evellisse spicas et factum esse, ut projectis, quum iis essent demta grana, spicis exprimeretur via .” We must rather conceive of the field-path on which they are walking perhaps at a place where it leads through a field of corn which it intersects as overgrown with ears, so that they must of necessity, in order to continue their journey, make a path , which they do by plucking the ears of corn that stand in their way. According to Matthew and Luke, the chief point lies in the fact that the disciples pluck the ears and eat them; and the Pharisees find fault with their doing this which in itself is allowable on the Sabbath . According to Mark, however, who has not a word [65] of the disciples eating, their act consists in this, that by the plucking of the ears of corn they open a way through the field ; and the Pharisees, Mar 2:24 , find fault that they do that, which in itself is already unallowable , [66] on the Sabbath . The justification of Jesus amounts then, Mar 2:25 ff., to the two points: (1) that according to David’s precedent the proceeding of the disciples, as enjoined by necessity , is by no means unallowable ; and (2) that the Sabbath makes no difference in the matter.
The origin of this difference itself is easily explained from the fact, that Jesus adduces the history of the eating of the shew-bread, by means of which also the eating of the ears of corn came into the tradition of this incident. Mark betrays by his abandoned by Matthew and Luke, and by the less obvious connection of it with the eating of the shew-bread, the original narrative, which perhaps proceeded from Peter himself.
] the article designates the ears of corn that stood in the way .
Mar 2:24 . They do not ask, as in Matthew and Luke, why the disciples do what is unallowable on the Sabbath, but why they do on the Sabbath something (already in itself) unallowable .
Mar 2:25 . ] and He on His part , replying to them. He put a counter-question .
] In this lies the analogy. The disciples also were by the circumstances compelled to the course which they took. The demonstrative force of this citation depends upon a conclusion a majori ad minus . David in a case of necessity dealt apparently unlawfully even with the shew-bread of the temple, which is yet far less lawful to be touched than the ears of grain in general.
Mar 2:26 . .] tempore Abiatharis pontificis maximi, i.e. under the pontificate of Abiathar. Comp. Luk 3:2 ; Mat 1:11 . According to 1Sa 21:1 ff., indeed, the high priest at that time was not Abiathar, but his father (1Sa 22:20 ; Joseph. Antt. vi. 12. 6) Aimelech . Mark has erroneously confounded these two, which might the more easily occur from the remembrance of David’s friendship with Abiathar (1Sa 22:20 ff.). See Korb in Winer’s krit. Journ. IV. p. 295 ff.; Paulus, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek. The supposition that father and son both had both names (Victor Antiochenus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, Beza, Jansen, Heumann, Kuinoel, and many others), is only apparently supported by 2Sa 8:17 , 1Ch 18:16 , comp. 1Ch 24:6 ; 1Ch 24:31 ; as even apart from the fact that these passages manifestly contain an erroneous statement (comp. Thenius on 2 Sam. l.c. ; Bertheau judges otherwise, d. Bcher der Chron. p. 181 f.), the reference of our quotation applies to no other passage than to 1Sa 21 . Grotius thought that the son had been the substitute of the father. Recourse has been had with equally ill success to a different interpretation of ; for, if it is assumed to be coram (Wetstein, Scholz), 1 Sam. l.c. stands historically opposed to it; but if it is held to mean: in the passage concerning Abiathar , i.e. there, where he is spoken of (Mar 12:26 ; Luk 20:37 ), it is opposed by the same historical authority, and by the consideration that the words do not stand immediately after (in opposition to Michaelis and Saunier, Quellen d. Mark. p. 58).
Mar 2:27 f. . ] frequently used for the introduction of a further important utterance of the same subject who is speaking; Bengel: “Sermonem iterum exorsus.” Comp. Mar 4:9 . As Jesus has hitherto refuted the reproach conveyed in , Mar 2:24 , He now also refutes the censure expressed by , Mar 2:24 . Namely: as the Sabbath has been made (brought into existence, i.e. ordained) for the sake of man , namely, as a means for his highest moral ends (Gen 2:3 ; Exo 20:8 ff.), not man for the sake of the Sabbath , [67] it follows thence: the Messiah has to rule even over the Sabbath , so that thus the disciples, who as my disciples have acted under my permission, cannot be affected by any reproach in respect of the Sabbath. The inference depends on the fact that the , i.e. the Messiah (not with Grotius and Fritzsche to be taken as man in general), is held ex concesso as the representative head of humanity. [68] On the mode of inference in general, comp. 1Co 11:9 ; 2Ma 5:19 .
] emphatically at the beginning: is not dependent, but Lord , [69] etc.; whereby, however, is expressed not the prerogative of absolute abolition (see against this Mat 5:17 ff., and the idea of the of the law makes its appearance even in Mar 7:15 ff; Mar 10:5 ff; Mar 12:28 ff.), but the power of putting in the place of the external statutory Sabbath observance while giving up the latter something higher in keeping with the idea of the Sabbath, wherein lies the of the Sabbath-law. Comp. Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 811; Weizscker, p. 391.
] also , along with other portions of His .
[65] Mark has been blamed on this account. See Fritzsche, p. 69. But the very evangelist, who knew how to narrate so vividly, should by no means have been charged with such an awkwardness as the omission of the essential feature of the connection which is just what the latest harmonizing avers. It ought to have been candidly noted that in Mark the object of the plucking of the ears is the ; while in Matthew it is the eating on account of hunger . The occasions of the necessity, in which the disciples were placed, are different : in the former case, the ; in the latter, the hunger.
[66] To this view Holtzmann and Hilgenfeld have acceded, as also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 29; Schenkel, Charakterbild , p. 86; and as regards the in itself, also Lange. The defence of the usual explanation on the part of Krummel in the allgem. K. Zeit. 1864, No. 74, leaves the linguistic difficulty which stands in its way entirely unsolved. He should least of all have sought support from the reading of Lachmann ( ); for this also never means anything else than viam sternere , and even in the middle voice only means to make for oneself a path . Weiss ( Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1865, p. 363) calls my explanation “somewhat odd;” this, however, can matter nothing, if only it is linguistically correct, and the usual one linguistically erroneous.
[67] Comp. Mechilta in Exo 31:13 : “Vobis sabbatum traditum est, et non vos traditi estis sabbato.” According to Baur, ver. 27 belongs to “the rational explanations,” which Mark is fond of prefixing by way of suggesting a motive for what is historically presented. To the same class he would assign Mar 9:39 , Mar 7:15 ff. Weizscker finds in the passage before us a later reflection. This would only be admissible, if the idea facilitated the concluding inference, which is not the case, and if Mark were not in this narrative generally so peculiar . The connecting link of the argumentation preserved by him might more easily have been omitted as something foreign, than have been added .
[68] For Him, as such, in the judgment to be formed of the obligatory force of legal ordinances, the regulative standard is just the relation, in which man as a moral end to himself stands to the law. Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. Kirche , p. 29 ff.
[69] With this the freedom of worship is given as well as assigned to its necessary limit , but not generally “ proclaimed ” (Schenkel).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fourth, Conflict.The Ears of Corn on the Sabbath; the Son of Man also Lord of the Sabbath. Mar 2:23-28
(Parallels: Mat 12:1-8; Luk 6:1-5.)
23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn-fields [sowed-fields] on the Sabbath-day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn [began to make a way, by plucking off the ears: Meyer]. 24And the Pharisees said unto him, Be hold, why do they on the Sabbath-day that which is not lawful? 25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? 26How he went into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar the high-priest,16 and did eat the shew-bread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. See on the parallels of Matthew and Luke.In regard to the time, it is to be observed that this event belongs to a later section of the life of Jesus (after He had returned from the Feast of Purim 17 in 782), when persecution took a decided form against Him. The same remark holds good of the healing of the man with a withered hand. But the motive of Mark in inserting the matter here was evidently to connect appropriate facts. The first offence and the first conflict referred to the forgiveness of sins, which Christ pronounced, and which was alleged against Him as a blasphemous invasion of the rights of God, meaning especially the rights of the priests; the second offence was the intercourse of Christ with publicans and sinners; the third, the opposition of His festal, social companionship to the ascetic and pharisaic fasts,on which then follows in our narrative the account of the offence taken at the freer position which He and His disciples assumed towards the Sabbath.
Mar 2:23. Went through the corn-fields.The marks the circumstance that He opened His way right and left through the overhanging ears; whereas the disciples began to make their path by plucking and rubbing these ears. Thus does Meyer explain, and doubtless rightly, the It is true that Mark says nothing directly about eating; but that is to be taken for granted in any rational rubbing of the ears, and is further manifest from the Lords justification of them, appealing to the fact of David having eaten the shew-bread. According to Meyer, the allusion to the history of David aimed only to vindicate the rubbing of the ears as an act of necessity; and he thinks that the unessential circumstance of the shew-bread having been eaten led to the insertion into the other Gospels of the tradition concerning eating the ears. This needs no refutation. It is impossible to make the rubbing corn in their hands, in order to clear the way, into an act of sheer necessity, such as eating the shew-bread was. In fact, Mark takes pleasure in presenting a vivid picture of everything. He here tells us how the disciples attained two objects by one and the same act. The less of the two, making a way, occupied his mind merely as the counterpart of Jesus in another manner; and the suggestion of plucking the ears was quite enough to denote synecdochically the eating them also.
Mar 2:24. Why do they on the Sabbath-day that which is not lawful?Meyer tries to establish this discrepancy between the other Evangelists and Mark, that he makes the Pharisees ask in this passage, Why do they on the Sabbath-day something that is forbidden in itself? 18 But in that case Jesus would have replied only to the first and less important part of their accusation. But if we regard their words as a question of surprise, abruptly asked, and as it were answered by themselves, the harmony of the accounts is sufficiently established. For the Sabbath traditions of the Rabbins, consult Braune. It was not a journey, being only a walk through a by-path; 2,800 ells distance from the town were permitted by the law.To pluck and rub with the hand ears from the field of a neighbor, was allowed; Moses forbade only the sickle (Deu 23:25). But the matter belonged to the thirty-nine chief classes (fathers), each of which had its subdivisions (daughters), in which the works forbidden on the Sabbath were enumerated. This was their hypocritical way, to make of trifling things matters of sin and vexation to the conscience.
Mar 2:26. In the days of Abiathar the high-priest.According to 1Sa 21:1, Ahimelech was the high-priest who gave David the shew-bread (Joseph. Antiq. vi. 12, 6). His son Abiathar succeeded him, who was Davids friend (1Sa 22:20; 1Ki 1:7). Moreover, in 2Sa 8:17, Ahimelech is inversely called the son of Abiathar. So also in 1Ch 24:6; 1Ch 24:31. Hence it was early supposed that the father and son had both names (Euth. Zig.), or that the son was the vicarius of his father (Grotius); while some have proposed to modify the meaning of the (under Abiathar). 19 Later expositors, on the other hand, have assumed that the names have been mistakenly interchanged; but to insist, with Meyer, upon this view, appears to us hypercritical and arbitrary, when we remember that in Exo 2:18 the same father-in-law of Moses is once called Raguel and then Jethro, and especially that Jewish tradition was possessed of many supplements of the sacred narrative, as appears from the discourse of Stephen (Acts 7), and the allusion to the Egyptian magicians, 2Ti 3:8. Here the Old Testament itself gave occasion to supplementary tradition, and the scriptural knowledge of the time incorporated and used it. Moreover, it is to be assumed that the priests son Abiathar stood in a nearer relation to David, which made the unusual proceeding more explicable. The tabernacle was then at Nob.
Mar 2:28. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord. The Son of Man, and not merely as man (Grotius); not, however, the Messiah in the official sense, but the Son of Man in His inviolable holiness, and in His mysterious dignity (intimated in Daniel) as the Holy Child and Head of humanity appearing in the name of God.Lord over the Sabbath; that is, administrating and ruling over it in its New Testament fulfilment and freedom (comp. Meyer).
A clause is found appended to Luk 6:5 in some Codd.: The same day Jesus saw one working on the Sabbath, and said unto him, Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, thou art happy; if thou knowest not, thou art accursed. This historically questionable saying has been placed by some in the same traditional category with the words, To give is more blessed than to receive, Act 20:35. See Meyer on Luke, and Braune, Evangelium.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. See on the parallels.For the Jewish Sabbath and the Sabbath ordinances, consult the article in Winer. First, the opponents of Jesus thought that He sinned against sound doctrine; then they went further, and urged objections against His free treatment of discipline and pious usages; but now, finally, they would allege that He, in the person of His disciples, sinned against the decalogue, and against one of its most sacred commandments, that concerning the Sabbath. And if, at first, their exasperation against Him was only an internal matter, they now directly attack Him in the persons of His disciples, as appears without any disguise in the history that follows in the text.
2. Christ, even in the silent corn-field, is not safe from the plots of His enemies.The different manner in which Jesus and His disciples made their respective ways through the field.
3. Abiathar=Ahimelech; or, the freer relation of the New Testament believers to the Old Testament. For the shew-bread, consult the article in Winer, as well as the various writings on Old Testament Symbolism of Bhr, Kurtz, Hengstenberg, Sartorius, etc.
4. The Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath.The spirit of traditionalism and fanaticism perfectly inverts the ordinances of the kingdom of God; making the means the end, and the end the means.
5. The Son of Man the Lord; or the roots of the supremacy and dignity of Christ which are found in the relation of His sacred human nature to mankind. The Son of Many the Lord in all aspects and on all sides; therefore Lord of the Sabbath.But the Lord is a ruler, administrator, and fulfiller of His ordinances; not the abolisher of them.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The Lords patience in making His way, and in abstaining, as contrasted with the conduct of His disciples.Christ in the field among the ears of corn, a noble figure.The blessing of nature and the blessing of grace in their unity.The first tokens of the coming freedom of the disciples in its significance; or, Christian freedom a child of need and justification felt in the spirit of Christ.The peculiar need of the moment pointing to the means of help for ever: 1. The failing way; the lacking bread; the idea that one need might be removed by the other. 2. The significance of this fact for the spiritual relations of the kingdom of God.To make a way for the Lord the best means of nourishment for His disciples.The Pharisees everywhere like a shadow of the free Gospel.Man himself the oldest Divine institution, and what follows from it: 1. Nothing in favor of the arbitrary treatment of Divine institutions; 2. but much in favor of free dealing with human traditions.The kingdom of heaven is preminently a kingdom of personal life or of love.The Sabbath for man; that Isaiah , 1. its law is for the life of the soul, 2. its rest is for devotion, 3. the ordinance for salvation.The Sabbath for man, and therefore for his eternal Sabbath; and this also was made for man, as man for it.
Starke:Quesnel:Christ never performed miracles to feed Himself and His disciples in their hunger; in order to teach them that they should never without necessity seek extraordinary ways, and that their neighbors need should press on their hearts more than their own.Jesus hungers, while His disciples eat; and thereby shows that a teacher, ruler, and leader should be more perfect than his disciples.Osiander:We should learn to suffer want with Christ, and to abound with Christ.Quesnel:The pride of the Pharisaic nature drives a man to make himself a judge of others, and to demand of them an account of all they do.Canstein:Gods will is, that we should diligently read the books of the Old Testament, and set them before the people; that we may derive thence teaching and example.Majus: All errors must be refuted out of Holy Writ.Quesnel:The usages and ordinances of religion should have for their object the glory of God and the profit of men.The true Sabbath festival.Believers are with Christ and through Christ lords of the Sabbath, that they may use it for their own and their neighbors necessities.
Lisco:The highest end is man himself. The whole law was only the means for the education of men, whom God keeps thus under external discipline until the law is inwardly and spiritually apprehended and obeyed. But believers adapt themselves, in the spirit of love, to all outward ordinances (although, of course, in the spirit of the Lord),Gerlach rightly adds: To all outward ordinances that assist the need of the Christian Church.Every arbitrary violation of legal discipline, without the justification of the spirit of grace and love in Christ, is a heavy sin.Only the spirit of adoption makes free from the yoke of the law.Braune:As David was pitilessly persecuted by Saul, so were the disciples by the Pharisees.Men are to find rest and refreshment in holy days, but not to suffer hunger and distress.There is no law given to the righteous; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.Schleiermacher:The Redeemer might have more easily vindicated Himself had He referred to the words of the law, Deu 23:24, etc.; but He aimed at something higher, to show that all such laws were subjected to a higher spiritual law (the example of David).The Son of Man Lord of the Sabbath; the Redeemer is the measure of all; the question must be, whether a thing is according to His mind and of advantage to His kingdom.Bauer:The Lord of the Sabbath has given to every believing mind a Sabbath-law, for its direction and not for its trouble: Thou shalt worship God in spirit and in truth.
Footnotes:
[16]Mar 2:26.Under Abiathar the high-priest is wanting in D.; omitted on account of the historical difficulty.
[17]A festival introduced by Mordecai, to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews from the designs of Haman. It was celebrated on the 14th or 15th day of Adar, or March, and was called Purim, from a Persian word which signifies lot; because Haman ascertained by lot the day on which the Jews were to be destroyed. Est 3:7; Est 9:26.Ed.
[18]Meyer would find a discrepancy between Mark and Matthew with Luke, in the fact that the former says nothing about eating the grain, but only speaks of making a path through it. According to him, the Pharisees objected merely to the travelling on the Sabbath and the labor therein involved, and the story of the eating is an interpolation. But aside from the fact that may be rendered as in the English version to go, it seems improbable that the disciples should have taken pains merely to make a path through the yielding grain by pulling it up or plucking it off, when the simple stride would tread it down.Ed.
[19]Wetstein and Scholz suggest that it stands for coram. Ed.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
(23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn-fields on the sabbath-day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. (24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath-day that which is not lawful? (25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? (26) How he went into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? (27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath (28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
There is somewhat uncommonly beautiful and interesting in this view of JESUS and his disciples passing through the corn-fields; and the discourse which arose out of it, from the disciples plucking the ears of corn and eating them. The allusion which JESUS makes to the hunger of David and his companions, in eating the shewbread, gives a blessed spiritual application to the subject. On the LORD’s day, and every day, when hungry souls seek for CHRIST, the true shew bread, and the bread of life, where, but to the house of GOD, shall they go for this spiritual sustenance? It is now indeed the most blessed days of our High Priest, of which those of Abiathar were but a shadow. And the LORD JESUS hath made all his redeemed, both kings and priests, to the Father. So that, when our spiritual David, and they that are with him, go into the house of GOD, the LORD sets a feast of fat things before them, in the enjoyment of his person, blood and righteousness, and saith, Eat, O friends! drink, yea drink abundantly, Oh beloved! Son 5:1 . And I pray the Reader to observe, what our dear LORD saith in relation to the Sabbath, of which he himself is the LORD, that it was made for man. What man? Not only as a mere rest for the whole race of men, but for the LORD’s people, as a sacramental ordinance of the LORD’s rest front the works of creation. The rest is in CHRIST. Yea CHRIST himself is the rest wherewith he causeth the weary to rest, and this is the refreshing. Isa 28:12 . And hence the Psalmist saith, return to thy rest (thy Noah, thy Ark, the type of CHRIST). Psa 116:7 . And hence the HOLY GHOST declares, there is a rest (JESUS himself) which remaineth for the people of GOD. Heb 4:9 . So that the Sabbath was made for man, the renewed man, for the special persons of those interested in the LORD of the Sabbath, and to whom He is, peculiarly and personally, both the LORD of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath itself, in whom they rest, and who is their soul-refreshing. It is precious thus to eye CHRIST as the sum and substance of all; the ordinance, the shewbread, the Sabbath, and the LORD of it; in whose house, yea in himself, it is lawful, and lawful only to his priests to eat of Him, the bread of life, and live forever. Joh 6:48-58 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
XXVII
OUR LORD’S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Part II
Harmony -pages 89-45 and Mat 9:27-34
This is a continuation of the great ministry of our Lord in Galilee and the next incident is the healing of the two blind men and the dumb demoniac. It will be noted that our Lord here tested the faith of the blind men in his ability to heal them, and when they were healed he forbade their publishing this to the people, but they went forth and told it and spread his fame in all the land. It was “too good to keep.” Immediately after this they brought to him one possessed with a demon and dumb, and he cast out the demon. This produced wonder among the common people, but brought forth another issue between our Lord and the Pharisees. Tins is the third issue with them, the first being the authority to forgive sins at the healing of the paralytic; the second, the eating with publicans and sinners at the feast of Matthew; the third, the casting out of demons by the prince of demons, which culminated later in the unpardonable sin.
The next incident in our Lord’s ministry is his visit to Jerusalem to the Feast of the Passover (see note in Harmony, p. 39), at which he healed a man on the sabbath and defended his action in the great discourse that followed. In this discussion of our Lord the central text is Joh 5:25 and there are three things to be considered in this connection.
THE OCCASION
The scriptural story of the circumstances which preceded and called forth these utterances of our Saviour is very familiar, very simple, and very touching. A great multitude of impotent folk, blind, halt, withered, were lying in Bethesda’s porches, waiting for the moving of the waters. It is a graphic picture of the afflictions and infirmities incident to human life; the sadness of ill-health; the unutterable longing of the sick to be well; the marvelous power of an advertised cure to attract to its portals and hold in its cold waiting rooms earth’s despairing sufferers, so grouped as to sicken contemplation by the varieties and contrasts of all the ills that flesh is heir to.
Blindness groping its way trying to see with its fingers; deafness vainly and painfully listening for a voice it cannot hear listening with its eyes; lameness limping along on nerveless, wooden feet; blistered, swollen tongues, dumb and senseless, appealing to fingers for speech and to nostrils for taste; the pitiful whining of mendicancy and vagabondage and raga timidly dodging from an expected blow while begging alms; the hideousness of deformity, either shrinking from exposure or glorifying to make conspicuous its repulsiveness, while a side-light reveals, crouched in the misty background, Sin, the fruitful mother of all this progeny of woe.
Ah I Bethesda, Bethesda, thy porches are the archives of unwritten tragedies! If the hieroglyphics inscribed by suffering on thy cold stone pavements could be deciphered, the translations age by age, would be but a repetition of sorrow’s one prayer to pitying heaven: Oh heaven! have compassion on us! Oh heaven I send a healer to us.
It was a sad sight. Now, among the number gathered about that pool was a man who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. His infirmity was impotence lack of power. His physical and his mental powers were prostrated, paralyzed. His affliction was so great that it prevented him from availing himself of any chance of being cured in this pool, and he was tantalized by lying in sight of the cure, continually seeing cures performed on others, and never being able to reach it himself. Such a case attracted the attention of Jesus. He came to this man and propounded an important question: “Do you want to be healed? Are you in earnest? Do you really wish to be made whole?” The man explains the circumstances that seemed to militate against his having a desire to be made whole: “I have not continued in this condition thirty-eight years because I did not try to help myself. I would be cured if I could be, but I cannot get down there into that water in time. Somebody always gets ahead of me. There is nobody to put me into the pool. My lying here so long and suffering so long, does not argue that I do not wish to be healed.” Now, here is the key of the passage. Without employing the curative powers of the water, without resorting to any medical application whatever, by a word of authority, Jesus commanded him to rise up: “Be healed and walk.” Now, do not forget that it was by a simple command, an authoritative voice, that that cure was consummated.
The time was the sabbath. There were certain bigots and hypocrites who imagined that they were the conservators of religion, and the only authoritative interpreters and expounders of the obligations of the Fourth Commandment: “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” They preferred two charges against the Lord Jesus Christ. The first charge was that he had violated the sabbath in performing that cure on the sabbath day. He worked on the sabbath day, whereas the commandment said that there should be a cessation from work on that day. And the second count in the charge was that he had caused another to work on that day, in that he made this man take up his bed and walk. Now, that is the first controversy. It is a controversy with reference to the violation of the Fourth Commandment. Jesus defended himself: “My Father worketh on the sabbath day. You misunderstand that commandment. It does not say, ‘Do no work,’ but that commandment says, ‘Do no secular and selfish work.’ It does not gay, ‘Do no work of mercy.’ It does not say, ‘Do no work of necessity.’ And as a proof of it, God, who rested upon the day originally and thereby hallowed it, himself has worked ever since. True, he rested from the work of creation, but my Father worketh hitherto and I work.” His defense was this: That they misunderstood the import of the commandment, and that what he did had this justification that is was following the example of the Father himself. Now comes the second controversy. Instantly they prefer a new charge against him, growing out of the defense that he had made. The charge now is a violation of the First Commandment, in that he claimed God as his father, his own father, and thereby made himself equal with God, which was blasphemy.
The keynote grows out of his defense against this second charge not the charge about the violation of the sabbath day, but the charge suggested by his defense the charge that he made himself equal with God. His defense is this: “I admit the fact. I do make myself equal with God. There is no dispute about the fact. But I deny the criminality of it. I deny that it furnishes any basis for your accusation.” And then he goes on to show why. He says, “As Son of man, in my humanity I do not do anything of myself. I do not put humanity up against God. As Son of man I never do anything unless I first see my Father do it. Then, if my Father doeth it, I do it. In the next place, everything that the Father doeth I see. He shows it to me.” What infinite knowledge; what intimacy with the Father! Why does he show it? “He shows it to me because he loves me. Why else does he? He shows it to me in order that he may induce all men to honor me as they honor him, and therefore he does not himself execute judgment upon anybody. He hath committed all judgment to me. He hath conferred upon me all authority and all power. And whoever hears my voice and believeth in me hath eternal life and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.” Thus he claims omniscience that he sees everything that the Father does. He claims omnipotence that he does everything that his Father does. He claims supreme authority that he exercises all the judgment that is exercised upon this earth and in the courts of heaven and in the realms of woe. He claims that he does this because, like the Father, he hath life in himself underived life, self-existence. Now, that brings us to the key verse: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” Hence the theme of this passage is “The Voice and the Life.”
Everyone that hears the voice of the Son of God, from the moment that he hears it, is alive forevermore; is exempt from the death penalty; is possessed of eternal life and shall not receive the sting of the second death and shall stand at the right hand of the Father, happy, saved forever!
THE EXEGESIS
The meaning of this passage is easily determined. We have only to compare this verse with a statement of the context. Let us place them side by side: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming [not “now is,”] in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Here are two things set over against each other. One present, the other future. Two kinds of dead people: Those who are alive and yet dead, and those who are dead and in their tombs. The dead who are alive may now hear and live. The dead in their graves cannot hear until the resurrection. It follows that the first is spiritual death and the second physical death. The dead soul may now hear and live; the dead body not now, but hereafter. As there are two deaths, there are two resurrections. Spiritual resurrection is now resurrection of the body is not now. And the meaning is that the death in each case is broken by the voice. The voice gives life now to those “dead in trespasses and sins.” “You hath he quickened.” The voice raises the dead in the tombs at the second coming.
I have already called attention to this fact, that that impotent man was healed, not by the application of any medicine; that he was healed by a word of authority. He spoke and it was done. The thought that runs all through this passage, that indeed is the essence and marrow of it, is that the voice which confers life is a voice of command, is a voice of authority, is a divine voice, speaking from the standpoint of sovereignty and of omniscience and of power, and commanding life, and life coming in a moment, at the word. That is the thought of it. The dead shall hear his voice. The dead shall hear his voice when he says, “Live,” and, hearing, shall live. I want to impress that idea of the voice being a voice of command, a voice of authority and of irresistible power.
Let me illustrate: John, in the apocalyptic vision, sees the Son of God, and I shall not stop to describe his hair, his voice, his girdle, his feet, or his manner. He is represented as opening his lips and a sword coming out of his mouth a sword!
The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. The command that issues from the lips of Jesus Christ is irresistible. No defensive armor can blunt the point of that sword. No ice can quench the fire that is in it. No covering can protect from it. It reaches into the joints and into the marrow, and it touches the most secret things that have been hidden even from the eyes of angels.
Let me illustrate again: Once there was chaos, and chaos was blackness wave after wave of gloom intermingled with gloom. Suddenly a voice spoke, “Let there be light,” and light was. What means were employed? No means. Only the voice. He spake and it stood fast. It was the voice of authority. It was the voice of God. It was the voice of commandment, and nature obeyed her God. Read Psa 28 . A mountain is described in that psalm a mountain covered with tall cedar trees and then it says God spoke and the mountain trembled and the cedar trees snapped in twain and skipped like lambs, carried away, not on the breath of the wind, but on the voice of God.
Take but this case: Job had some ideas about salvation. God spoke to him and after asking how much knowledge he had, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? What do you know about the heavenly bodies? What do you know about the giving of color, and the father of the rain, and in what womb the hoar frost and the ice are gendered? What do you know? Then what power have you? Can you feed the young lions when they lack? Can you drag out Leviathan with a hook? Can you pierce Behemoth with a spear when he churneth the deep and maketh it hoary?” Now comes the climax: “Have you a voice like God? If you think you have, rise up and speak; and speak to all the proud, and by your voice cast the proud down and bind their faces in secret. Then I will confess that your right hand can save you. But if you have no such knowledge; if your knowledge is not infinite; if your power is not infinite; if you cannot bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion; if you cannot abase the proud by a word, then do not attempt to say you save yourself.”
Notice again: A man had one of his senses locked up the sense of hearing. He had an ear, but it could not hear, and be came to Jesus. There he is, the deaf man. Jesus spoke one word, Ephphatha. What does it mean? “Be open.” And the ear opened.
Occasionally now for the benefit of the gullible and the credulous some man will claim to have such vast powers as that he shall put his hand upon the sick and they shall be made whole for two dollars a visit! But the whole of it is a fraud.
Here is one who spoke to an ear whose power of hearing was destroyed, and to give hearing to that ear meant creative power, and he simply said, “Be open,” and it was open.
Take another case: A centurion comes upon the recommendation of the Jews to Jesus. He says, “Lord, I have a servant very dear to me and he is very sick. He is at the point of death. But I am not worthy that you should come to my house. You just speak the word and my servant shall be healed. I understand this; I am a man of authority myself. I have soldiers under me and I say to this one, Do that, and he doeth it. And I say to another, Do this, and he doeth it. Now you have authority. You need not come. You need not go through any movements of incantation. Speak the word and my servant will be healed.” Jesus says, “He is healed.”
Take another case: In Capernaum was a nobleman. He had one child, just one, a little girl twelve years old and she died. His only child is dead, and he comes to Jesus, and Jesus follows him, comes into the house, pushes people aside that are weeping there and wailing, walks into the room of death, takes hold of that dead girl’s hand, and he says, “Talitha Cumi damsel, arise.” And at the word of the Son of God, the dead girl rose up and was well.
Take another. He is approaching a city. There comes out a procession, a funeral procession. Following it is a brokenhearted widow. On the bier is her son her only son. The bier approaches Jesus. He commands them to stop. They put it down. He looks into the cold, immobile, rigid face of death, and he speaks: “Young man, I say unto thee, arise.” And at the voice of the Son of God he rises.
Take another. In Bethany was a household of three, but death came and claimed one of the three, and the sisters mourned for the brother that was gone. And he was buried four days; he had been buried, and decay and putridity had come. Loathesomeness infested that charnel house, and the Son of God stands before that grave, and he says, “Take away that stone.” And there is the presence, not of recent death, as in the case of that girl on whose cheek something of the flush of life yet lingered; not like the young man of Nain, who had not been buried. But here was hideous death. Here was death in all of its horror and loathesomeness. The worms are here. And into that decayed face the Son of God looked and spoke, “Lazarus, come forth!” And he rose up and came forth. He heard the voice of the Son of God, and he lived.
Take yet another, Eze 37 . There is a valley. That valley is full of bones dead men’s bones dead longer than Lazarus dead until all flesh is gone, and there is nothing there but just the dry, white bones. And the question arises, “Can these dry bones live?” And there comes a voice, “O breath, breathe on these slain.” And at the voice they lived. That is why I said that the voice of this passage is the voice of authority. It is a voice of power. It is an irresistible voice. And whoever hears it is alive forevermore.
It is winter, and winter has shrouded the world in white and locked the flow of rivers and pulsation of lakes; stilled the tides which neither ebb nor flow, and there comes a voice, the voice of a sunbeam shining, the voice of a raindrop falling, the voice of a south wind blowing, and winter relaxes his hold. Cold winter is gone and the waters flow, and the juices rise, and the flowers bud and bloom, and fruit ripens and the earth is recreated. That represents the voice of God.
THE DOCTRINE
Now, what is the doctrine? The doctrine of this passage is that Jesus Christ is God Almighty manifest in the flesh the self-existent, eternal, immutable, all-powerful God. That his word is authoritative; that his word conveys life; and that he speaks that word when, where, bow, and to whom he wills. He is the sovereign.
If there are many lepers in Israel he may speak to Naaman, the Syrian, only, “Be thou clean.” If there are many widows in Israel he may speak to the widow of Sarepta alone, “Be thou saved from famine.” If there are a multitude lying impotent around this pool he may speak to this one only and say, “Rise up and walk.” He is a sovereign. The election is his.
I can no more tell to whom he will speak than I can count the stars, or the leaves, or the grains of sand. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. I know to whom I speak. I do not know to whom Jesus shall speak.
But I can tell the evidences from which we may conclude that he has spoken when he does speak, and that is the great point here. It is the ringing trumpet note of the Eternal God. How may we know that we hear him? Paul says in his letter to the Thessalonians, “This gospel came unto you, not in word only, but in power.” In power I If, then, we hear the voice of Jesus, there will be energy in it. There will be vitality in it. There will be life in it. It will not be mere sound, but Bound embodying life. And how is that power manifested? It is manifested in this, that if we hear him we feel that we are singled out from all the people around us. We feel that we are cut out from the crowd. We feel that his eye is on us. We feel that we stand before God in our individuality alone. If we hear his voice, it discovers our heart to us. It shows us what we are. And not only that, but if we hear his voice there is a revelation to us of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. What says the Scripture? “If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost in whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them that believe not, but God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, revealing the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Now look back to that first scripture, “Let there be light, and light was.” God, who commanded the light to shine out of the darkness, hath shined into our hearts, into the chaos and gloom and blackness of our hearts, and by that shining he has revealed to us his glory. Where? In the face of his incarnate Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Continuing his discourse, Jesus refers to John as a witness and he says that his witness was greater than that of John, because his works bear witness of him. He then asserts that they had never heard God’s voice nor did they have his Word abiding in them; that they were destitute of the love of God; that they sought not the glory of God; that they were convicted by the law of Moses because it testified of him and they received not its testimony. This he said was the reason that they would not believe his words. The reader will note how tactfully our Lord here treats his relation to the Father in view of the growing hatred for him on the part of the authorities at Jerusalem (see note in Harmony, p. 41).
On his way back from Jerusalem to Galilee he and his disciples were passing through the fields of grain and the disciples, growing hungry, plucked the heads of grain and rubbed them in their hands, which they were allowed to do by the Mosaic law. But the Pharisees, in their additions to and expositions of the law, had so distorted its true meaning that they thought they had ground for another charge against him. But he replies by an appeal (1) to history, the case of David, (2) to the law, the work of the priests, (3) to the prophets, and (4) to his own authority over the sabbath. This fourth issue with the Pharisees is carried over into the next incident where he heals the man with a withered hand on the sabbath day. Here he replied with an appeal to their own acts of mercy to lower animals, showing the superior value of man and the greater reason for showing mercy to him. Here again they plot to kill him.
When Jesus perceived that they had plotted to kill him, he withdrew to the sea of Galilee and a great multitude followed him, insomuch that he had to take a boat and push away from the shore because of the press of the crowd. Many were press- ing upon him because of their plagues, but he healed them all. This is cited as a fulfilment of Isa 42:1-4 , which contains the following items of analysis: (1) The announcement of the servant of Jehovah, who was the Messiah; (2) his anointing and its purpose, i. e., to declare judgment to the Gentiles; (3) his character lowly; (4) his tenderness with the feeble and wounded; (5) his name the hope of the Gentiles.
After the great events on the sea of Galilee our Lord stole away into the mountain and spent the whole night in prayer looking to the call and ordination of the twelve apostles. Then he chose the twelve and named them, apostles, whom both Mark and Luke here name. (For a comparison of the four lists of the twelve apostles see Broadus’ Harmony, p. 244.)
QUESTIONS
1. How did our Lord test the faith of the two blind men whom he healed?
2. What was our Lord’s request to them and why, and what was the result and why?
3. What was the result of his healing the dumb demoniac and what the culmination of the issue raised by the Pharisees?
4. What were the great events of our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem to the Passover (Joh 6:1 )?
5. What was the occasion of his great discourse while there?
6. Describe the scene at the pool of Bethesda.
7. What was the time of this incident and the issue precipitated with the Pharisees?
8. How did Jesus defend himself?
9. What was new charge growing out of this defense and what our Lord’s defense against this charge?
10. How does Jesus here claim omniscience, omnipotence, and all authority?
11. What was the bearing of this upon the key verse (Joh 5:25 ) of this passage?
12. Give the exegesis of Joh 5:25-29 .
13. What was the main thought running all through this passage? Illustrate by several examples.
14. What was the doctrine here expressed and how does the author illustrate it?
15. What were the evidences of the voice of the Son of God?
16. How does Jesus proceed to convict them of their gross sin and what the charges which he prefers against them?
17. Show how tactfully Jesus treated his relation to the Father and why.
18. State the case of the charge of violating the sabbath law in the cornfields and Jesus’ defense.
19. How does he reply to the same charge in the incident of the man with a withered hand and what the result?
20. Describe the scene that followed this by the sea of Galilee.
21. What prophecy is here fulfilled and what was the analysis of it?
22. What the occasion here of all-night prayer by our Lord?
23. What the order of names in the four lists of the twelve apostles as given by Mark, Luke, and Acts?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
Ver. 23. See Trapp on “ Mat 12:1 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23 28. ] THE DISCIPLES PLUCK EARS OF CORN ON THE SABBATH. Mat 12:1-8 . Luk 6:1-5 . The same may be said of the three accounts as in the last case, with continually fresh evidence of their entire independence of one another .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
23. . ] He passed by or journeyed (so our Evangelist uses the word, see reff.) through, &c.
. is matter of detail and minute depiction. The interpretation of this narrative given by Meyer, which I still believe to be an entirely mistaken one, I cannot pass over so slightly as I did in my first edition. He urges the strict classical sense of , ‘ to make a way,’ viam munire , or sternere , and insists on the sense conveyed by our narrative being, as distinguished from those in [9] Matt., Luke, that the disciples made a way for themselves through the wheat field by plucking the ears of corn , further maintaining, that there is no allusion here to their having eaten the grains of wheat, as in [10] Matt. Luke. But (1) the foundation on which all this is built is insecure. For in the LXX does undoubtedly mean ‘ to make one’s journey ,’ representing the Heb. , in Jdg 17:8 (examples are also quoted in the lexx. from Xenophon (the romancer)’s Ephesiaca and from Polynus). And (2) as to no allusion being made to their having eaten the corn, how otherwise could the have been common to the disciples and to David? Could it be said that any necessity compelled them to clear the path by pulling up the overhanging stalks of corn? How otherwise could the remarkable addition in our narrative, Mar 2:27 , at all bear upon the case? Fritzsche’s rendering, ‘cperunt viam exprimere spicas evellendo,’ which he explains, ‘to mark the way by plucking ears, and strewing them in it,’ is still worse. The classical sense of must evidently not be pressed: it here .
[9] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
[10] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 2:23-28 . The Sabbath question (Mat 12:1-8 , Luk 6:1-5 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mar 2:23 . .: connection with foregoing topical, not temporal; another case of conflict. : is followed here by the infinitive in first clause, then with and a finite verb in second clause. It is sometimes followed by indicative with , and also without ( vide Burton’s Syntax , 360). . stands here instead of . in Lk., and the simple verb with after it in Mt. It seems intended to combine the ideas of going through and alongside. Jesus went through a corn field on a footpath with grain on either side. is a puzzling phrase. In classic Greek it means to make a road = viam sternere , meaning to make way = iter facere . If we assume that Mk. was acquainted with and observed this distinction, then the meaning will be: the disciples began to make a path by pulling up the stalks ( ), or perhaps by trampling under foot the stalks after first plucking off the ears . The in that case will mean that they began to do that when they saw the path was not clear, and wished to make it more comfortable for their Master to walk on. But it is doubtful whether in Hellenistic Greek the classic distinction was observed, and Jdg 17:8 (Sept [15] ) supplies an instance of = making way, “as he journeyed”. It would be natural to Mk. to use the phrase in the sense of iter facere . If we take the phrase in this sense, then we must, with Beza, find in the passage a permutata verborum collocatio , and translate as if it had run: : “began, as they went, to pluck,” etc. (R. V [16] ). The former view, however, is not to be summarily put aside because it ascribes to the disciples an apparently wanton proceeding. If there was a right of way by use and wont, they would be quite entitled to act so. The only difficulty is to understand how a customary path could have remained untrodden till the grain was ripe, or even in the ear. On this view vide Meyer. Assuming that the disciples made a path for their Master by pulling up the grain, with which it was overgrown, or by trampling the straw after plucking the ears, what did they do with the latter? Mt. and Lk. both say or imply that the plucking was in order to eating by hungry men. Meyer holds that Mk. knows nothing of this hunger, and that the eating of the ears came into the tradition through the allusion to David eating the shewbread. But the stress Mk. lays on need and hunger (duality of expression, Mar 2:25 ) shows that in his idea hunger was an element in the case of the disciples also.
[15]Septuagint.
[16] Revised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mark
WORKS WHICH HALLOW THE SABBATH
Mar 2:23 – Mar 2:28
These two Sabbath scenes make a climax to the preceding paragraphs, in which Jesus has asserted His right to brush aside Rabbinical ordinances about eating with sinners and about fasting. Here He goes much further, in claiming power over the divine ordinance of the Sabbath. Formalists are moved to more holy horror by free handling of forms than by heterodoxy as to principles. So we can understand how the Pharisees’ suspicions were exacerbated to murderous hate by these two incidents. It is doubtful whether Mark puts them together because they occurred together, or because they bear on the same subject. They deal with the two classes of ‘works’ which later Christian theology has recognised as legitimate exceptions to the law of the Sabbath rest; namely, works of necessity and of mercy.
Whether we adopt the view that the disciples were clearing a path through standing corn, or the simpler one, that they gathered the ears of corn on the edge of a made path as they went, the point of the Pharisees’ objection was that they broke the Sabbath by plucking, which was a kind of reaping. According to Luke, their breach of the Rabbinical exposition of the law was an event more dreadful in the eyes of these narrow pedants; for there was not only reaping, but the analogue of winnowing and grinding, for the grains were rubbed in the disciples’ palms. What daring sin! What impious defiance of law! But of what law? Not that of the Fourth Commandment, which simply forbade ‘labour,’ but that of the doctors’ expositions of the commandment, which expended miraculous ingenuity and hair-splitting on deciding what was labour and what was not. The foundations of that astonishing structure now found in the Talmud were, no doubt, laid before Christ. This expansion of the prohibition, so as to take in such trifles as plucking and rubbing a handful of heads of corn, has many parallels there.
But it is noteworthy that our Lord does not avail Himself of the distinction between God’s commandment and men’s exposition of it. He does not embarrass himself with two controversies at once. At fit times He disputed Rabbinical authority, and branded their casuistry as binding grievous burdens on men; but here He allows their assumption of the equal authority of their commentary and of the text to pass unchallenged, and accepts the statement that His disciples had been doing what was unlawful on the Sabbath, and vindicates their breach of law.
Note that His answer deals first with an example of similar breach of ceremonial law, and then rises to lay down a broad principle which governed that precedent, vindicates the act of the disciples, and draws for all ages a broad line of demarcation between the obligations of ceremonial and of moral law. Clearly, His adducing David’s act in taking the shewbread implies that the disciples’ reason for plucking the ears of corn was not to clear a path but to satisfy hunger. Probably, too, it suggests that He also was hungry, and partook of the simple food.
Note, too, the tinge of irony in that ‘Did ye never read?’ In all your minute study of the letter of the Scripture, did you never take heed to that page? The principle on which the priest at Nob let the hungry fugitives devour the sacred bread, was the subordination of ceremonial law to men’s necessities. It was well to lay the loaves on the table in the Presence, but it was better to take them and feed the fainting servant of God and his followers with them. Out of the very heart of the law which the Pharisees appealed to, in order to spin restricting prohibitions, Jesus drew an example of freedom which ran on all-fours with His disciples’ case. The Pharisees had pored over the Old Testament all their lives, but it would have been long before they had found such a doctrine as this in it.
Jesus goes on to bring out the principle which shaped the instance he gave. He does not state it in its widest form, but confines it to the matter in hand-Sabbath obligations. Ceremonial law in all its parts is established as a means to an end-the highest good of men. Therefore, the end is more important than the means; and, in any case of apparent collision, the means must give way that the end may be secured. External observances are not of permanent, unalterable obligation. They stand on a different footing from primal moral duties, which remain equally imperative whether doing them leads to physical good or evil. David and his men were bound to keep these, whether they starved or not; but they were not bound to leave the shew bread lying in the shrine, and starve.
Man is made for the moral law. It is supreme, and he is under it, whether obedience leads to death or not. But all ceremonial regulations are merely established to help men to reach the true end of their being, and may be suspended or modified by his necessities. The Sabbath comes under the class of such ceremonial regulations, and may therefore be elastic when the pressure of necessity is brought to bear.
But note that our Lord, even while thus defining the limits of the obligation, asserts its universality. ‘The Sabbath was made for man’-not for a nation or an age, but for all time and for the whole race. Those who would sweep away the observance of the weekly day of rest are fond of quoting this text; but they give little heed to its first clause, and do not note that their favourite passage upsets their main contention, and establishes the law of the Sabbath as a possession for the world for ever. It is not a burden, but a privilege, made and meant for man’s highest good.
Christ’s conclusion that He is ‘Lord even of the Sabbath’ is based upon the consideration of the true design of the day. If it is once understood that it is appointed, not as an inflexible duty, like the obligation of truth or purity, but as a means to man’s good, physical and spiritual, then He who has in charge all man’s higher interests, and who is the perfect realisation of the ideal of manhood, has full authority to modify and suspend the ceremonial observance if in His unerring judgment the suspension is desirable.
This is not an abrogation of the Sabbath, but, on the contrary, a confirmation of the universal and merciful appointment. It does not give permission to keep or neglect it, according to whim or for the sake of amusement, but it does draw, strong and clear, the distinction between a positive rite which may be modified, and an unchangeable precept of the moral law which it is better for a man to die than to neglect or transgress.
The second Sabbath scene deals with the same question from another point of view. Works of necessity warranted the supercession of Sabbath law; works of beneficence are no breaches of it. There are circumstances in which it is right to do what is not ‘lawful’ on the Sabbath, for such works as healing the man with a withered hand are always ‘lawful.’
We note the cruel indifference to the sufferer’s woe which so characteristically accompanies a religion which is mainly a matter of outside observances. What cared the Pharisees whether the poor cripple was healed or no? They wanted him cured only that they might have a charge against Jesus. Note, too, the strange condition of mind, which recognised Christ’s miraculous power, and yet considered Him an impious sinner.
Observe our Lord’s purpose to make the miracle most conspicuous. He bids the man stand out in the midst, before all the cold eyes of malicious Pharisees and gaping spectators. A secret espionage was going on in the synagogue. He sees it all, and drags it into full light by setting the man forth and by His sudden, sharp thrust of a question. He takes the first word this time, and puts the stealthy spies on the defensive. His interrogation may possibly be regarded as having a bearing on their conduct, for there was murder in their hearts Mar 2:6. There they sat with solemn faces, posing as sticklers for law and religion, and all the while they were seeking grounds for killing Him. Was that Sabbath work? Whether would He, if He cured the shrunken arm, or they, if they gathered accusations with the intention of compassing His death, be the Sabbath-breakers?
It was a sharp, swift cut through their cloak of sanctity; but it has a wider scope than that. The question rests on the principle that good omitted is equivalent to evil committed. If we can save, and do not, the responsibility of loss lies on us. If we can rescue, and let die, our brother’s blood reddens our hands. Good undone is not merely negative. It is positive evil done. If from regard to the Sabbath we refrained from doing some kindly deed alleviating a brother’s sorrow, we should not be inactive, but should have done something by our very not doing, and what we should do would be evil. It is a pregnant saying which has many solemn applications.
No wonder that they ‘held their peace.’ Unless they had been prepared to abandon their position, there was nothing to be said. That silence indicated conviction and obstinate pride and rooted hatred which would not be convinced, conciliated, or softened. Therefore Jesus looked on them with that penetrating, yearning gaze, which left ineffaceable remembrances on the beholders, as the frequent mention of it indicates.
The emotions in Christ’s heart as He looked on the dogged, lowering faces are expressed in a remarkable phrase, which is probably best taken as meaning that grief mingled with His anger. A wondrous glimpse into that tender heart, which in all its tenderness is capable of righteous indignation, and in all its indignation does not set aside its tenderness! Mark that not even the most rigid prohibitions were broken by the process of cure. It was no breach of the fantastic restrictions which had been engrafted on the commandment, that Jesus should bid the man put out his hand. Nobody could find fault with a man for doing that. These two things, a word and a movement of muscles, were all. So He did ‘heal on the Sabbath,’ and yet did nothing that could be laid hold of.
But let us not miss the parable of the restoration of the maimed and shrunken powers of the soul, which the manner of the miracle gives. Whatever we try to do because Jesus bids us, He will give us strength to do, however impossible to our unaided powers it is. In the act of stretching out the hand, ability to stretch it forth is bestowed, power returns to atrophied muscles, stiffened joints are suppled, the blood runs in full measure through the veins. So it is ever. Power to obey attends on the desire and effort to obey.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 2:23-28
23And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. 24The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” 27Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
Mar 2:23 “He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath” This referred to the footpaths through the grain fields which surrounded the villages and towns. These “grainfields” could refer to any kind of cereal grain (i.e., barley, wheat).
Mar 2:24 “‘why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath'” The Pharisees considered the disciples’ actions as (1) harvesting; (2) winnowing; and (3) preparing food on the Sabbath, which was illegal according to their oral traditions based on Exo 34:21. Jesus’ disciples were not doing anything illegal in their actions according to the gleaning laws of the OT (cf. Deu 23:25); the problem was the day (cf. Gen 2:1-3; Exo 20:8-11; Exo 23:12; Exo 31:15; Deu 5:12-15) on which they did it! It seems that the Gospel writers record Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath to show (1) the controversies they caused or (2) that Jesus did these kinds of things everyday and the Sabbath was no exception.
Mar 2:25-28 This famous statement (cf. Mar 2:27) by Jesus is unique to Mark. It expresses His authority to reinterpret OT traditional understandings and guidelines (cf. Mat 5:17-48). This was in reality another sign that Jesus was claiming to be God’s Messiah.
Mar 2:25 Grammatically this question expects a negative answer. It refers to an account of David’s life recorded in 1 Samuel 21. Jesus often used the OT to illustrate His teachings (cf. Mar 2:25-26; Mar 4:12; Mar 10:6-8; Mar 10:19; Mar 12:26; Mar 12:29-30; Mar 12:36).
Mar 2:26 ‘ “the house of God'” This referred to the portable Tabernacle located at Nod.
“‘Abiathar'” There is a historical problem between 1Sa 21:1 ff, when compared to 2Sa 8:17 and 1Ch 18:16 over the name Abiathar or Abimelech: (1) both the father and the son are called High Priest and (2) Jesus used a preposition, epi, with a genitive in the sense of “in the days of” which meant “during his time” (cf. Act 11:28; Heb 1:2). We know that shortly after this event King Saul killed Abimelech and Abiathar fled to David (cf. 1Sa 22:11-23) and became one of two recognized high priests (i.e., Abiathar and Zadock).
This is one example of the kinds of problems that simply cannot be explained away. This is not Greek manuscript variation. If it was one has to assume an early scribal error before the papyri manuscripts were hand copied (which is speculation). It bothers all Bible teachers that Jesus misquotes a part of the OT history, especially since in this context Jesus is chiding the Pharisees for not reading the Scripture.
There are some books that try to deal with the conservative options in interpreting difficult texts.
1. Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Branch.
2. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer.
3. Answers to Questions by F. F. Bruce.
“‘consecrated bread'” The loaves weighed about 6 pounds each! There were 12 loaves replaced weekly and the week-old loaves symbolizing YHWH’s provisions for the twelve tribes of Israel were to be eaten by the priests only (cf. Exo 25:23-28; Lev 24:5-9). God made an exception to the rule in this case. Jesus is claiming to have the same authority as the High Priest and the same right as the soon-to-be king, David!
Mar 2:27 The Sabbath regulations had become the priority. These traditions had become the issue of religion, not love for humans made in God’s image. The priority of rules had replaced the priority of relationship. Merit had replaced love. Religious traditions (i.e., the Oral Law) have replaced God’s intent (cf. Isa 29:13; Col 2:16-23). How does one please God? A good OT analogy might be sacrifice. God intended it as a way for sinful, needy humanity to come to Him and restore broken fellowship, but it turned into a ritual, liturgical procedure. So too, Sabbath law! Mankind had become the servant instead of the object (i.e., the reason for the laws).
The three statements of Mar 2:27-28 are, in one sense, parallel (i.e., all use the general terms for humanity). The term “son of man” in Mar 2:28 is the Semitic idiom for “human person” (cf. Psa 8:4; Eze 2:1). It became Jesus’ self-designation. Jesus, the Man, reveals the ultimate dignity and priority of humanity! God became one of us, for us! Human need precedes religious tradition. God is for us individually and collectively.
Mar 2:28 “Son of Man” See note at Mar 2:10.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
through. Greek. dia. App-104, Mar 2:1.
on = in, or during. Greek. en. App-104.
as they went. Greek. to make their way. AHebreism. See Jdg 17:8 (marg,): = as they journeyed; not to make a path by destroying the stalks of corn, but only plucking “the ears”.
to pluck, &c. Reference to Pentateuch (Deu 23:25). Compare App-92. A recognised custom to this present clay, not only for travellers, but for their horses. So with grapes (Deu 23:24),
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23-28.] THE DISCIPLES PLUCK EARS OF CORN ON THE SABBATH. Mat 12:1-8. Luk 6:1-5. The same may be said of the three accounts as in the last case, with continually fresh evidence of their entire independence of one another.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 2:23-28
4. PLUCKING CORN ON THE SABBATH
Mar 2:23-28
(Mat 12:1-8; Luk 6:1-5)
23 And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields;–Sabbath was the seventh day or our Saturday. A day of rest for both man and beast of burden. The name is derived from a Hebrew verb, meaning to rest from labor, to cease from action. In Judea, grain begins to ripen around the first of May. It was at this time Jesus and his disciples were going through the grainfields. Matthew says: “They walked.” They were fields sown with wheat or barley.
and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears.–[Several months have been passed over and we are now in the early summer of the second year of the public ministry of Jesus. The corn mentioned here is wheat or barley. Wheat can be rubbed out in the hand and eaten, and will satisfy hunger, while it is fairly palatable. This must have been when the wheat was ripe, yet in the fields, either before it was cut or while in the shock. This is too late for the harvest of the first year, so must be in the summer of the second year of the public ministry of Jesus. They began to gather the wheat heads and rub out the wheat in their hands (Luk 6:1) and eat. It was not wrong, according to the Jewish law, for men to take enough of the fruits or the grain to satisfy hunger. They could take nothing away. (Deu 23:24.) The disciples did not violate this law, but the point raised by the Pharisees, was it a violation of the Sabbath law to gather and eat the grain on the Sabbath day?)
24 And the Pharisees–The Pharisees were a kind of Jewish Puritans, but had in our Savior’s time degenerated into a sect of formalists, who paid more attention to outward forms than to inner life. They were very scrupulous in observing ceremonies, very orthodox, but were filled with spiritual pride and thought themselves wise. They soon became strong opposers of Christ.
said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?–An exclamation of surprise expressed to Jesus by the Pharisees. They desired to direct his attention to something strange and unexpected. Here a fourth charge or ground of opposition, on the part of the more scrupulous and rigid Jews, was brought against Jesus, namely, suffering his disciples to do what was unlawful. They demand with what right, or by what authority, he allowed them to do this. The question implies censure. They considered plucking the heads was a kind of reaping, and rubbing out the grain, a kind of threshing, and this they considered unlawful. It was doing work, namely, harvesting on the Sabbath. The disciples really transgressed, not the divine law of the Sabbath, but the Pharisaical interpretation of that law. [All the Jews, in theory at least, held the law of Moses in reverence. The Pharisees were especial sticklers for the observance of all the forms of the law to the neglect of the spirit. The Sabbath had been very sacred by the enactment of Moses and the teaching of succeeding prophets. The Pharisees were shocked that the disciples of Christ should violate the law concerning the Sabbath and made complaints to Jesus. It was done in a fault-finding spirit with Jesus.]
25 And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?–Note the emphasis on need and hungry. His followers, too, were hungry; but it is on the act of David, as one of the most eminent of the Jews, that our Lord concentrates attention. [David (1Sa 21:1-6) had come to the priest at Nob hungry and wearied; had asked for bread. The priest said: “There is no common bread.” So the priest gave him hallowed bread, “for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before Jehovah, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.” The showbread was replaced with fresh bread every Sabbath. The priest then ate the old.] David and his followers under necessity took and ate the showbread which was lawful for priests only to eat. Necessity rose higher than ceremonials.
26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread,–The tabernacle was at Nob, an eminence near Jerusalem; on the north probably within sight of the city. The showbread was the bread that was kept on the golden table in the Holy Place.
which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?–David and those that were with him entered into the tabernacle and ate the showbread. David took, ate, and gave to his companions. Whatever may have been the meaning of this singular observance, it was certainly a necessary and divinely instituted part of the tabernacle service, resting on the same authority, though not on the equal moment with the Sabbath. [The tabernacle was movable as long as the children of Israel were wandering and unsettled; but as soon as they had taken full possession of the promised land, which was not till the reign of David, and in the reign of Solomon, the portable tent was exchanged for a permanent substantial dwelling.] To do good was made lawful by Moses without distinction of days but the Pharisees had denied its lawfulness on the Sabbath day. Christ shows them from their own law, and by the example of David, that it was not unlawful to do good on the Sabbath day. [This showbread was kept before the Lord seven days; it was then replaced with fresh bread, and the old was eaten by the priests. David, being hungry, ate of it and gave it to his companions. The meaning of it was that David, a servant of God, was permitted, in case of necessity, to eat of this bread that was lawful only for the priests.]
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, –For man’s whole body, for body and soul, for physical rest, for mental and social improvement, for his spiritual and moral growth, and for his eternal salvation. They treat man as nothing but an animal who advocate the use of the Sabbath for mere physical recreation and pleasure. The Sabbath was not made for man’s physical body only, but for man, his whole nature. And it was made for man as man, that is, all men; and it was to be so kept so as not to take it away from others. Christ’s principles carried out would have brought a perfect keeping of the Sabbath. It was made for man’s benefit and happiness. It was created for his use and intended for his highest spiritual good. To keep it holy–that is, the manner of keeping it, must be in accordance with its design. It was for his rest from toil, the cares and anxieties of the world, to give an opportunity to call off his attention from earthly concerns, and to direct it to the affairs of eternity. It was a kind provision for man that he might refresh his body by relaxing his labors; that he might have undisturbed time to seek the consolation of religion to cheer him in the anxieties and sorrows of a troubled world; and that he might render to God that homage which is most justly due to him as the Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor. The Sabbath here mentioned is the seventh day Sabbath and the Jews were to keep it in remembrance of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt. The Sabbath day and the first day of the week are two separate and distinct days and we ought not to confound the two. The Lord came from the grave on the first day of the week, making it possible for us to be delivered from the bondage of sin through his blood. For this cause the early Christians observed this day–they assembled around the Lord’s table and partook of the Lord’s Supper and carried out all the Lord’s directions concerning that day. It was never called the Sabbath day in the New Testament and the name ought not to be applied to it now. The first day of the week is called the Lord’s day (Rev 1:10), but never the Sabbath day. No day has been more blessed to man’s welfare than the first day of the week–the Lord’s day. To that day we owe more than to any other day, the peace and order of civilization. Where there is no Lord’s day, there is ignorance, vice, disorder, and crime. On that day, man may offer his praises to the Giver of all good, and around the Lord’s table seek the blessings of him whose favor is life. When that day is observed as it should be, order prevails, morals are promoted, the poor are elevated in their condition, vice flies away, and the community puts on the appearance of neatness, industry, morality, and religion.
not to be injured and his true interests destroyed for the sake of any law or any day. [It was made to bless and benefit man, and when the good of man demanded it the stringency of its law might be relaxed, or itself might be taken out of the way, as those concerning the eating the showbread had been for David. Matthew (Mat 12:5-6) adds: “Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here.” The law of God was, “Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day” (Exo 35:3), and they were to do no cooking, yet in the temple service they cooked the showbread on the Sabbath. This was done by the order of God, and the point Jesus makes is that God, for the sake of the temple service, set aside the Sabbath law, and here is one greater than the temple, and who has the authority to repeal or supersede the Sabbath law. He acted by the authority of God, and being divine could set the law of the Sabbath aside. But he did not deny they broke the Sabbath law.] The argument here is the law of the Sabbath is to bend to the highest interest and happiness of man, and not the highest interest and happiness of man to the Sabbath. The Sabbath laws must not, by a superstitious observance, be perverted to the exclusion of mercy and necessity. The Sabbath was not first made, and then man made to fit the Sabbath. Man was made first, and then the Sabbath was made to fit the man. Since it was intended for his good, therefore, the law respecting it must not be interpreted so as to oppose his real welfare. It must be interpreted in consistency with a proper attention to the duties of mercy to the poor and the sick, and to those in peril.
28 so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.–He ordained the Sabbath; he instituted the law; he knew its full meaning and object and value, and therefore had a right to interpret the meaning of the Sabbath law. [If they could set aside the law for David, in reference to the showbread, because he was hungry, or if God would change the Sabbath law to have the bread cooked on the Sabbath, he was Lord of the Sabbath to modify its laws for his disciples. The whole argument is an assertion of his power to supersede or set aside the law of the Sabbath. Necessity freed David from fault and blame in eating the showbread, for in cases of necessity a ceremonial precept must give way to a moral duty. Works of mercy and necessity for preserving life, and for better fitting men for Sabbath services, were certainly lawful on the Sabbath day. The passage teaches, then, not that men 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.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the Lord of the Sabbath
Mar 2:23-28; Mar 3:1-19
The ritualist demands the outward, the conventional, the ancient usage of the past. Christ says, Be natural. The needs of man, whether of body or of soul, are greater than ceremonial restriction. Ceremonies are only expressions of life, and where life is wanting, they are meaningless and void.
The withered hand, Mar 3:1-6. Through long disuse of powers which God has given, but which we have refrained from exercising, degeneration may have set in; Christ, however, bids us exert them again. In so far as we dare to obey, we shall find ourselves able. Dare to speak, or pray, or work, not at the impulse of your nature, but at His bidding, and you will suddenly find yourself given power.
The Apostolate, Mar 2:7-19. On three occasions Christ used the boat as His pulpit, Mar 4:1; Luk 5:3. We must be disciples (learners), before we can be apostles (those sent). As the Father sent the Master, so the Master sends us. Our mission is threefold-to bear Him company, to perform His errands, and to cast out devils. What infinite variety in the apostolic band! The Boanergic group of four; the group of questioners who were sometimes doubters; and the group of practical men, whose business capacity was a snare at least to one. If there was a traitor even amid the Twelve, who can expect to find his fields free from tares?
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
CHAPTER 9
The Lord of the Sabbath
And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; 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, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Mar 2:23-28
We have before us a remarkable scene in the earthly life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was early in the morning on Saturday, the sabbath day, the appointed day of worship for the Jews in the Old Testament.[1] Our Lord Jesus and his disciples were, in all likelihood, on their way to a place of public worship. As they walked to the place of worship, they passed through a field of corn. As they walked along, the disciples began to pick a few ears of corn. They rubbed the corn in their hands, I presume to get the grain out and soften it up a little.
[1] We observe the sabbath of faith, a spiritual sabbath rest in Christ, and live in the hope and anticipation of a glorious, eternal sabbath rest with Christ (Heb 4:3-9); but there is absolutely no sense in which we keep a carnal, legal sabbath day in this age of grace. The New Testament clearly forbids the observance of such sabbath days, which were but a shadow of things to come (Col 2:16-17). Believers commonly gather in the house of God and worship on Sunday, which is called the Lords day (Rev 1:10), because our Savior arose on the first day of the week; but Sunday is not the Sabbath.
Why are we so insistent and dogmatic about this? Because Christ, who is the Lord of the sabbath, is Christ our Sabbath. For us to go back to keeping a sabbath day, as the Jews did in the Old Testament, or for us to put on the yoke of legal religion, is to say that Christ fulfilled nothing. Legalism is, in its essence, a denial of Christs finished work as the sinners Substitute. That was the reason for Pauls strong denunciation of Peters behavior at Antioch.
To them, it was a totally insignificant thing. They made no attempt to hide or cover their actions because they never gave the matter a thought. But when the Pharisees saw the Lords disciples picking corn on the sabbath day, they jumped on them like ducks on June-bugs. Immediately, they accused them to the Lord, as if they had committed some terribly evil moral offense.
Why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? The answer our Master gave to these self-righteous, work mongers is full of wise instruction for our souls. We should study the passage with care and lay its teachings to heart.
Fault Finders
The first thing that is obvious in these verses is the fact that self-righteous, religious legalists are always quick to spot and point the faults of others.
And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; 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? (Mar 2:23-24)
These Pharisees represent the very worst of religious men. They were mere ceremonialists and legalists. They cherished the outward shell and show of religion. They loved it so much that they added laws to the laws given by God to Moses and ceremonies to Gods appointed symbolic and typical ceremonies. Their godliness was all form and formality, creed and custom. For them washings and fastings, tithings and forms of prayers, pageantry and ceremonies were holiness. Their godliness was all bodily exercise and will worship. They knew absolutely nothing of repentance, faith, and mercy. People who have obtained mercy are merciful. Those who have experienced forgiveness are forgiving. Those who know grace are gracious.
Our Lord plainly told the Pharisees that if they had known anything of true godliness, they would not have condemned the guiltless. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless (Mat 12:7).
But the disciples had done nothing wrong. The Savior said they were guiltless in doing what they did. The Pharisees simply presumed that since it was commonly thought to be wrong, since it broke their traditions, it was horribly wrong. Let us watch and pray, lest we fall into the wickedness of the Pharisees. The leaven of the Pharisees, which our Lord warned us to beware of, is that subtle self-righteousness that makes sinners think they are righteous because of what they do and do not do. Only self-righteous Pharisees and legalists spy on one another. Only self-righteous Pharisees and legalists are quick to point out the faults and offenses of others. Only self-righteous Pharisees and legalists seek to regulate the lives of others.
Bible Doctrine
The second thing I want us to see from this passage is the fact that, as believers, we should always be able to defend our doctrine and our behavior from the Word of God. If our doctrine is not Bible doctrine it is false doctrine.
Our Lords reply to these carping Pharisees was taken directly from the Word of God. He was thoroughly familiar with Holy Scriptures. I realize that he is the Author as well as the Subject of this Book. Yet, his example here, as always, is a pattern for us to follow. He defended his disciples and defended them in their behavior from the Word of God.
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? (Mar 2:25-26)
In spiritual and doctrinal matters nothing is so powerful a defense, nothing is so powerful a weapon to stop the mouths of gainsayers as the plain texts of Scripture, where the meaning is so obvious that it cannot be mistaken.
In all points of doctrine and behavior our only authority, our only basis of conduct is the inspired Word of God. In spiritual matters we have no right to believe or do anything for which we are not able to point to the Word of God and say, This is why! We ought to be able to comfortably show from the Word of God the reason of our hope, the reason for our doctrine, and the reason for our ordinances.
The only way we will be able to use the Word of God this way is by making ourselves personally acquainted with its contents. Do not be content with secondhand knowledge and secondhand religion. Study the Word of God for yourself. Read it diligently, perseveringly, and prayerfully, carefully comparing scripture with scripture (Joh 5:39; 2Ti 2:15). J. C. Ryle rightly observed
There is no royal road to the knowledge of the Bible. It does not come to man by intuition. The book must be studied, pondered, prayed over, searched into, and not left always lying on a shelf, or carelessly looked at now and then.
Our Saviors allusion to the hunger of David and his companions in eating the showbread opens a blessed spiritual application before us. This gospel day in which we live is day of our High Priest, of whom Abiathar and his days were but a shadow. And the Lord Jesus has made all his redeemed both kings and priests unto the Father (Rev 1:6). On the Lords day, or any day, when hungry souls gather in the house of God seeking Christ, the true Showbread (the Bread of Life), the Masters servants are to always spread the gospel feast. Where else should the hungry soul go for spiritual sustenance, but to the house of God? When our Lord Jesus, of whom David was a type, comes to his house with two or three gathered in his name (Mat 18:20), he spreads a feast of fat things before them and says, Eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved (Son 5:1). Then the hungry soul is fed from the Masters table.
Apparent Discrepancies
A third thing that may be observed from this passage is the fact that apparent discrepancies in the Word of God are easily cleared when thoughtfully considered. Though you may have missed the fact that, while Mark identifies the High Priest in Davids day as a man named Abiathar, in the book of 1 Samuel he is called Ahimelech (1Sa 21:6). Others have pointed to this as one of many things they see as discrepancies in the Bible. Believers do not quickly spot such apparent discrepancies in the blessed Book, because we do not look for them. But many look for an excuse for their skepticism. They point to this text and say, There, you see, Mark goofed up. How can you say the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, when it contains such errors?
Let me assure you first that such apparent discrepancies in the Word of God are not accidental. This Word of God is deliberately written to confuse rebels who will not bow to Christ. For those who are determined to go to hell, who are too smart to live by faith, who are too sophisticated to trust a crucified Substitute, God has put plenty of stumbling stones in the road to keep them tripped up. When God sends blindness, he sends total blindness.
Yet, that which seems a discrepancy to the infidel is easily cleared for the believer. There are two very likely reasons why Mark and Samuel may have used different names in their accounts of David going into the house of the High Priest and eating the showbread. First, there may have been, as was sometimes the case, two men serving as the High Priest at that time (2Sa 8:17). If that were the case, both may well have acted together in providing the showbread to David and his men; and it would be altogether proper, when describing the matter, to use either name. Second, and in my opinion most likely, Ahimelech had a second name, by which he was commonly called, Abiathar.
Lord of the Sabbath
The fourth thing revealed in this passage is the fact that Christ our Savior is the Lord of the sabbath.
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath (Mar 2:27-28).
There is a great depth of spiritual truth in these two verses, truths that simply must be understood and remembered by us. They are set before us in three, crystal clear, simple statements. I do not doubt that neither the Pharisees nor the Lords disciples understood them at the time. But there is no reason for confusion in these matters today. The Holy Spirit has now taken the things of Christ and shown their meaning in the Apostolic Epistles. Lets look at these three statements, one by one.
1.The sabbath was made for man.
Theologians, commentators, and preachers labor, and dig, and study, and work very hard to make that statement seem confusing. It is not confusing at all. When God established the sabbath day, he established it for the benefit of man. It was made to help, not to hurt, man. God instituted the sabbath observance of the Old Testament for exactly the same reason he instituted the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices of that typical age. He did it to portray to man the way of salvation and life by faith in Christ.
The sabbath was made for man. It was made to be a day of rest, pointing to the blessed rest of faith we find in Christ, who is our Rest, our Sabbath (Isa 28:12; Psa 116:7). There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God (Heb 4:9); and Christ is that Rest. Just as a man, in keeping the sabbath ceased from his own works, trusting God to provide everything he needed, so we come to Christ, ceasing from our own works, trusting him alone for everything. Resting in him, we keep the sabbath of faith (Mat 11:28-30; Heb 4:7-10).
When our Lord says the sabbath was made for man, we must never imagine that it was made for all men. The Scriptures are explicitly clear in telling us that the sabbath was made for the Jews of the Mosaic dispensation, who were the typical people of God. It was never given to or required of Gentiles (Exo 31:16-17). Not only did the ancient Jews never require Gentiles to keep the sabbath, they positively forbade sabbath day observance by Gentiles.[2] And our Lord Jesus Christ is the Sabbath Rest made for the Israel of God.
[2] The Jerusalem Councils recommendations said nothing about sabbath day observance (Acts 15). If ever the practice of sabbath keeping was to be imposed upon Gentiles that is the place where it would have been done.
2.Man was not made for the sabbath.
Though the Lord God himself kept a sabbath of rest, after creating the heavens and the earth, he never required Sabbath keeping of anyone until the law was given to Moses and the children of Israel at Sinai.
Understand the meaning of this. Men and women worshipped and served God for hundreds, even thousands of years, without being under laws of sabbath keeping, or any other form of law for that matter. Enoch walked with God; but he never kept a sabbath day. Noah was a righteous man; but he never observed a sabbath. Abraham was the friend of God; but he never kept a sabbath day.
3.Christ is the Lord of the sabbath.
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath (v. Mar 2:28). The simple, clear, and obvious meaning of this sentence is that he who is the Christ of God instituted the sabbath, fulfilled the sabbath, dispensed with the sabbath, and abrogated the sabbath in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree as he did all the other carnal ordinances, rituals, and ceremonies of the legal dispensation.
You may be thinking, If that is the case, then we ought never keep a legal, ceremonial sabbath day. If so, you are exactly right. Sabbath day observance is expressly and positively forbidden in the New Testament, just as much so as Passover observance (Gal 4:10-11; Col 2:16-17).
As we have seen already, sabbath observance was never binding upon Gentiles. And believers in Christ, wrote John Gill, be they who they will are by no means obliged to it, nor ought they to observe it. Should it be imposed upon them, they ought to reject it. Should they be judged, censored, and condemned for so doing, they ought not to mind it.
Christ, who is the Lord of the sabbath is himself our Sabbath. We keep no Sabbath, but the sabbath of faith. We do so because this is what our God requires of us. Not only are we free from the law in Christ, it is our responsibility to live as free men and women in him. To do otherwise is to deny his finished work as our Substitute, Redeemer, and Savior (Rom 10:4; Gal 5:1-4).
The sabbath day, that day of rest,
Was sanctified and blest
To point us to our Savior Christ,
In whom alone is rest.
That legal sabbath ended when
Christ died and rose again.
Yet, theres a sabbath that remains,
A rest thats found in Him.
Come unto Me, the Savior said,
And I will give you rest.
O weary sinners, cease from works,
Trust Christ and find sweet rest.
Ah, sweet refreshment for my soul,
The rest of faith is rest!
Ceasing from works, I trust Gods Son,
Christ is my Sabbath Rest!
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
that: Mat 12:1-8, Luk 6:1-5
to pluck: Deu 23:24, Deu 23:25
Reciprocal: Joh 9:14 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Chapter 17.
The Sabbath
“And it came to pass, that He went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; 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, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”-Mar 2:23-28.
Our Lord and the Sabbath.
We saw in our last chapter how Jesus offended the Jews by His disregard of fast days. But He offended them deepest of all by His free treatment of the Sabbath. Dr. A. B. Bruce points out that we have in the Gospels no fewer than six instances recorded of offence given or taken on this account. In five of these Jesus Himself is the offender; in the other-the story of which is given at this point by Mark-it is the conduct of the disciples that comes in for censure.
All this seems to prove that Jesus deliberately intended to alter the entire spirit of Sabbath observance. The Jews, in consequence of our Lord’s action, called Him a Sabbath-breaker. But He was no Sabbath-breaker. He was the true Sabbath-keeper. There is no hint or suggestion in any of these stories of His conflicts with the Pharisees of any repudiation of the Sabbatic law, of any intention to interfere with the day of rest. The hallowing of the Sabbath was one of those Divine commandments which our Lord bade others observe, and one which He observed Himself. What our Lord did protest against and fight against was the debasement of the Sabbath, that perversion of the commandment which had changed what God meant for a gracious boon into a most grievous burden.
The Charge of Sabbath-breaking.
How far that perversion had gone is made abundantly clear by the two incidents which Mark here relates. In the first they bring a charge of Sabbath-breaking against the disciples because they plucked the ears of corn as they passed through the field. In the other they bring a charge against our Lord Himself because He healed a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day. Our Lord has His defence for each specific case. His answer to the charge against His disciples is that no ritual or ceremonial law is to stand in the way of urgent human need. His answer to the charge against Himself is that the Sabbath brings no holiday from beneficence; mercy is of universal and perpetual obligation.
Our Lord’s Answer.
But our Lord was not content simply to answer the narrow and pedantic accusations of the Pharisees. In one simple but profound sentence He set forth the real meaning, intention, and purpose of the Sabbath. “The Sabbath,” He said, “was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mar 2:27).
This answer of our Lord’s is the key to a right conception of the Sabbath. The Pharisees had inverted the order. They had put the Sabbath first and man second, as if the whole duty of man was to observe a multitude of minute and detailed Sabbatic rules. Jesus restores the true order. He puts man first and the Sabbath second. Man was not made in order to keep the Sabbath; but the Sabbath was made in order to meet man’s needs. The Sabbath, that is to say, is not something which God exacts from man, it is a grace that He confers upon him. It was meant not for a burden but for a boon.
“For Man.”
That was not the Jews’ thought of it, and perhaps that is not exactly how some modern Christians think of it. They think of the Sabbath only, as Mr. Lathom says, as something done by men for God, and in so doing they make God a taskmaster like the gods of the pagans. But the Sabbath is really something done by God for men, and is a constantly-recurring evidence of His pity and love and gracious care. And we do not think of the Sabbath rightly until we look at it, not as a burdensome obligation, but as a beautiful privilege and a great delight.
“The Sabbath was made for man.” Notice the universal note. The Sabbath was not simply for the Jews; it was for man everywhere. It was a gift, not simply to the chosen people, but to all mankind. And the Sabbath was made for man, because man needed it. It was instituted for his convenience and benefit.
Within recent years the Sabbath has been spoken of as an “interruption in the week,” and a strenuous effort has been made to do away with it, as if it were a hindrance and obstacle to human progress. But the Sabbath is no vexatious “interruption,” it is a gracious ministry. The reason for the weekly rest day is lodged deep in human nature. Physically, mentally, spiritually man needs the Sabbath. And never was the Sabbath more needed than to-day, for never was the “pace” of life so fast.
What a boon our Lord’s Day is, coming as it does week by week to tired men and women, with its opportunity of rest for mind, and body, and soul. Let us hold fast to it; let us thank God for it
“Accept, O God, our hymn of praise,
That Thou this day hast given,
Sweet foretaste of the endless day
Of rest in heaven.”
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
3
Deu 23:24-25 gave the Jews the right to make personal use of the grain in the field but not to take any away. Thus no complaint could be made for their eating
this corn which was a small grain such as wheat or rye.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
THESE verses set before us a remarkable scene in our Lord Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry. We see our blessed Master and His disciples going “through the corn fields on the Sabbath day.” We are told that His disciples, “as they went, began to pluck the ears of corn.” At once we hear the Pharisees accusing them to our Lord, as if they had committed some great moral offence. “Why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?” They received an answer full of deep wisdom, which all should study well, who desire to understand the subject of Sabbath observance.
We see from these verses, what extravagant importance is attached to trifles by those who are mere formalists in religion.
The Pharisees were mere formalists, if there ever were any in the world. They seem to have thought exclusively of the outward part, the husk, the shell, and the ceremonial of religion. They even added to these externals by traditions of their own. Their godliness was made up of washings, and fastings, and peculiarities in dress, and will-worship, while repentance, and faith, and holiness were comparatively overlooked.
The Pharisees would probably have found no fault, if the disciples had been guilty of some offence against the moral law. They would have winked at covetousness, or perjury, or extortions, or excess, because they were sins to which they themselves were inclined. But no sooner did they see an infringement on their man-made traditions about the right way of keeping the Sabbath, than they raised an outcry, and found fault.
Let us watch and pray, lest we fall into the error of the Pharisees. There are never wanting Christians who walk in their steps. There are thousands at the present day who plainly think more of the mere outward ceremonial of religion than of its doctrines. They make more ado about keeping saints’ days, and turning to the east in the creed, and bowing at the name of Jesus, than about repentance, or faith, or separation from the world. Against this spirit let us ever be on our guard. It can neither comfort, satisfy, nor save.
It ought to be a settled principle in our minds, that a man’s soul is in a bad state, when he begins to regard man-made rites and ceremonies, as things of superior importance, and exalts them above the preaching of the Gospel. It is a symptom of spiritual disease. There is mischief within. It is too often the resource of an uneasy conscience. The first steps of apostasy from Protestantism to Romanism have often been in this direction. No wonder that Paul said to the Galatians, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed on you labor in vain.” (Gal 4:10-11.)
We see, in the second place, from these verses, the value of a knowledge of holy Scripture.
Our Lord replies to this accusation of the Pharisees by a reference to holy Scripture. He reminds His enemies of the conduct of David, when he “had need and was an hungered.” “Have ye never read what David did?” They could not deny that the writer of the book of Psalms, and the man after God’s own heart, was not likely to set a bad example. They knew in fact that he had not turned aside from God’s commandment, all the days of his life, “save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” (1Ki 15:5.) Yet what had David done? He had gone into the house of God, when pressed by hunger, and eaten “the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests.” [Footnote: There is some difficulty in this passage in the mention of Abiathar as “the High Priest.” In the book of Samuel it appears that Abimelech was the High Priest, when the circumstance here referred to took place. (1Sa 21:6.)
The explanations of this difficulty are various. They are as follows-
1. Beza says that both Abiathar and Abimelech had each two names, and that Abiathar was frequently called Abimelech, and Abimelech Abiathar. (See in proof of this, 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16, and 1Ch 24:3.)
2. Lightfoot would translate the words, “In the days of Abiathar, the son of the High Priest,” and says he is named rather than his father because he brought the Ephod to David, and by him inquiry was made by Urim and Thummim. He also says, that the Jews by “Abiathar” understood the Urim and Thummim, and to say that the thing was done “under Abiathar” would show that it was done by divine direction.
3. Whitby thinks that by “the High Priest” here, we are not to understand him who was strictly so called, but only one who was an eminent man of the order. He quotes as examples, Mat 2:4, Mat 26:3, Mat 27:62; Joh 11:47; Mar 14:10, Mar 14:43.
4. Some think that both Abimelech and Abiathar officiated as High Priests at the same time. That there was nothing altogether unusual in there being two Chief Priests at once, is shown by 1Ch 18:16, where two names are given as “the Priests.”
5. Some think that there has been a mistake made in transcribing the original words of Mark in this place, and some words have been inserted or wrongly written. Beza’s manuscript omits the words translated, “in the time of Abiathar the High Priest,” altogether. The St. Gall manuscript and the Gothic version have the word “Priest” simply, and not “High Priest.” The Persian version has “Abimelech” instead of “Abiathar.” However, it is only fair to say that the evidence of the great majority of manuscripts and versions is in favor of the text as it stands.
Some of these solutions of the difficulty are evidently more probable than others. But any one of them is far more reasonable and deserving of belief than to suppose, as some have asserted, that Mark made a blunder! Such a theory destroys the whole principle of the inspiration of Scripture. Transcribers of the Bible have possibly made occasional mistakes. The original writers were inspired in the writing of every word, and therefore could not err.] He had thus shown that some requirements of God’s laws might be relaxed in case of necessity. To this Scripture example our Lord refers his adversaries. They found nothing to reply to it. The sword of the Spirit was a weapon which they could not resist. They were silenced and put to shame.
Now the conduct of our Lord on this occasion ought to be a pattern to all His people. Our grand reason for our faith, and practice, should always be, “Thus it is written in the Bible.” “What saith the Scripture?” We should endeavor to have the word of God on our side in all debateable questions. We should seek to be able to give a scriptural answer for our behavior in all matters of dispute. We should refer our enemies to the Bible as our rule of conduct. We shall always find a plain text the most powerful argument we can use. In a world like this we must expect our opinions to be attacked, if we serve Christ, and we may be sure that nothing silences adversaries so soon as a quotation from Scripture.
Let us however remember, that if we are to use the Bible as our Lord did, we must know it well, and be acquainted with its contents. We must read it diligently, humbly, perseveringly, prayerfully, or we shall never find its texts coming to our aid in the time of need. To use the sword of the Spirit effectually, we must be familiar with it, and have it often in our hands. There is no royal road to the knowledge of the Bible. It does not come to man by intuition. The book must be studied, pondered, prayed over, searched into, and not left always lying on a shelf, or carelessly looked at now and then. It is the students of the Bible, and they only, who will find it a weapon ready to hand in the day of battle.
We see, in the last place, from these verses, the true principle by which all questions about the observance of the sabbath ought to be decided. “The Sabbath,” says our Lord, “was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
There is a mine of deep wisdom in those words. They deserve close attention, and the more so because they are not recorded in any Gospel but that of Mark. Let us see what they contain.
“The Sabbath was made for man.” God made it for Adam in Paradise, and renewed it to Israel on Mount Sinai. It was made for all mankind, not for the Jew only, but for the whole family of Adam. It was made for man’s benefit and happiness. It was for the good of his body, the good of his mind, and the good of his soul. It was given to him as a boon and a blessing, and not as a burden. This was the original institution.
But “man was not made for the Sabbath.” The observance of the day of God was never meant to be so enforced as to be an injury to his health, or to interfere with his necessary wants. The original command to “keep holy the Sabbath day,” was not intended to be so interpreted as to do harm to his body, or prevent acts of mercy to his fellow-creatures. This was the point that the Pharisees had forgotten, or buried under their traditions.
There is nothing in all this to warrant the rash assertion of some, that our Lord has done away with the fourth commandment. On the contrary, He manifestly speaks of the Sabbath day as a privilege and a gift, and only regulates the extent to which its observance should be enforced. He shows that works of necessity and mercy may be done on the Sabbath day; but He says not a word to justify the notion that Christians need not “remember the day to keep it holy.”
Let us be jealous over our own conduct in the matter of observing the Sabbath. There is little danger of the day being kept too strictly in the present age. There is far more danger of its being profaned and forgotten entirely. Let us contend earnestly for its preservation among us in all its integrity. We may rest assured that national prosperity and personal growth in grace, are intimately bound up in the maintenance of a holy Sabbath. [Footnote: The concluding words of the passage now expounded are remarkable. “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” They have received some rather strange interpretations, which it may be well to notice.
1. Chrysostom, Grotius, Calovius, and others, think that the “son of man” in this place means “any man,” any one naturally born of the family of Adam, and not Christ Himself. To say nothing of the objections that might be brought against the doctrine involved in such a sense, it is an unanswerable objection that the expression ” son of man” is never used in this way in the New Testament. Whitby says that it occurs eighty-eight times, and always applies to Christ.
2. Others say that our Lord’s meaning is, to assert His own right to dispense with the observance of the fourth commandment. This however seems a very unsatisfactory interpretation. Our Lord declares plainly in one place, that He came “not to destroy the law but to fulfil.” He challenges the Jews in another place to convict him of any breach of the law: “which of you convinceth me of sin?” His enemies, when they brought Him at last before Caiaphas, did not charge Him with breaking the fourth commandment. No doubt they would have done so had he given them occasion, either by His teaching or practice.
The true meaning appears to be, that our Lord claims the right to dispense with all the traditional rules, and man-made laws about the Sabbath, with which the Pharisees had overloaded the day of rest. As Son of man, who came not to destroy but to save, He asserts His power to set free the blessed Sabbath from the false and superstitious notions with which the Rabbins had clogged and poisoned it, and to restore it to its proper meaning and use. He declares that the Sabbath is His day-His by creation and institution, since He first gave it in Paradise and at Sinai-and proclaims His determination to defend and purify His day from Jewish imposition, and to give it to His disciples as a day of blessing, comfort, and benefit, according to its original intention.
Two things are implied in our Lord’s words. One is His own divinity. The “Lord of the Sabbath day” could be no less than God Himself. It is like the expression, ” In this place is one greater than the temple.” (Mat 12:6.) The other is His intention of altering the day of rest from the seventh day of the week to the first. At the time that He spoke, neither of these things doubtless were apparent to the Jews, and probably not to His disciples. After his ascension they “would remember his words.”
A passage in Mayer’s Commentary is worth reading. “It is certain that Christ being a perfect pattern of doctrine in all things, did not transgress, or maintain any transgression against any law of God. Wherefore it is to be held that all His speech here tended to nothing else but to convince the Pharisees of blindness and ignorance touching the right keeping of the Sabbath according to the commandment, it being never required to rest so strictly as they thought.”-Meyer’s Commentary. 1631]
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Mar 2:23. His disciples began. While so doing they were interrupted by the objection of the Pharisees.
Began to make their way, plucking off the ears. That they ate the grain, appears not only from the parallel passages, but from the reference to Davids eating (Mar 2:26). Some think the sense is: broke a way through the grain by plucking off the ears. But this would not have been necessary, since they could tread a path through. Evidently this account also in Mar 2:27 points to an act of necessity. Mark chooses the phrase in accordance with his graphic style.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The poverty, the low estate and condition, of Christ’s own disciples in this world; they wanted bread, and are forced to pluck the ears of corn to satisfy their hunger. God may, and sometimes doth, suffer his dearest children to fall in streights, to taste of want, for the trial of their faith, and dependence upon his power and providence.
Observe, 2. How the Pharisees (who accompanied our Saviour only with a design to cavil at, and quarrel with, every thing that either he or his disciples did) blame this action of the disciples, namely, the plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath-day.
Yet note, 1. It was not any theft which the disciples were charged with; for to take in our necessity so much of our neighbour’s goods as we may reasonably suppose that, if he were present, and knew our circumstances, he would give us, is no theft. But it is the servile labour on the sabbath, in gathering the ears of corn, which the Pharisees scruple.
Whence observe, How zealous hypocrites are for the lesser things of the law, whilst they neglect the greater, and are superstitiously addicted to outward ceremonies, placing all holiness in the observation of them, neglecting moral duties.
Observe farther, 3. How our Saviour defends the action of his disciples in gathering the ears of corn in their necessity, by the practice and example of David. Necessity freed him from fault and blame in eating the consecrated bread, which none but the priests might lawfully eat. For in cases of necessity a ceremonial precept must give way to a moral duty. Works of mercy and necessity for preserving our lives, and for the better fitting us for sabbath-services, are certainly lawful for the sabbath-day.
Observe, 4. A double argument which our Saviour uses, to prove that the sabbath’s observation may be dispensed with in a case of absolute necessity; 1. Drawn from the end of the sabbath’s institution: the sabbath was made for man; that is, instituted of God for the good and benefit of mankind, both with respect to their souls and to their bodies. The outward observing and keeping of the sabbath is subordinate to the good of man, and therefore the good of man is to be preferred before the outward keeping of the sabbath.
2. Argument is drawn from the authority which Christ, the Institutor of the sabbath, has over it. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath; that is, he has authority and power, both as God and as Mediator, to institute and appoint a sabbath, to alter and change the sabbath, to dispense with the breach of it upon a just and great occasion; and consequently, acts of mercy, which tend to fit us for works of piety, not only may, but ought to be done upon the sabbath-day: which was the proposition which our Saviour undertook to prove.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mar 2:23. He went through the corn-fields This passage we had Mat 12:1-8, where it was largely explained. In the days of Abiathar the high-priest From the passage in the history referred to, (1Sa 21:1-9,) it appears that Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was then high-priest; Abiathar himself not till some time after. This phrase, therefore, only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward high- priest. The sabbath was made for man And therefore must give way to mans necessity. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath Being the supreme Lawgiver, he has power to dispense with his own laws, and with this in particular.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
XXXVIII.
JESUS DEFENDS DISCIPLES WHO PLUCK GRAIN
ON THE SABBATH.
(Probably while on the way from Jerusalem to Galilee.)
aMATT. XII. 1-8; bMARK II. 23-28; cLUKE VI. 1-5.
b23 And c1 Now it came to pass a1 At that season bthat he aJesus went {bwas going} on the {ca} bsabbath day through the grainfields; aand his disciples were hungry and began bas they went, to pluck the ears. aand to eat, cand his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. [This lesson fits in chronological order with the last, if the Bethesda events took place at Passover. The paschal lamb was eaten on the fourteenth Nisan, or about the first of April. Clark fixes the exact date as the 29th of March, in A.D. 28, which is the beginning of the harvest season. Barley ripens in the Jordan valley about the 1st of April, but on the uplands it is reaped as late as May. Wheat ripens from one to three weeks later than barley, and upland wheat (and Palestine has many [209] mountain plateaus) is often harvested in June. If Scaliger is right, as most critics think he is, in fixing this sabbath as the first after the Passover, it is probable that it was barley which the disciples ate. Barley bread was and is a common food, and it is common to chew the grains of both it and wheat.] c2 But {b24 And} ccertain of the Pharisees awhen they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. bwhy do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? cWhy do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day? [The Pharisees did not object to the act of taking the grain. Such plucking of the grain was allowed by the law ( Deu 23:25) and is still practiced by hungry travelers in Palestine, which is, and has always been, an unfenced land, the roads, or rather narrow paths, of which lead through the grainfields, so that the grain is in easy reach of the passer-by. The Pharisees objected to the plucking of grain because they considered it a kind of reaping, and therefore working on the sabbath day. The scene shows the sinlessness of Jesus in strong light. Every slightest act of his was submitted to a microscopic scrutiny.] a3 But {b25 And} cJesus answering them asaid unto them, Have ye not read {bDid ye never read} ceven this [There is a touch of irony here. The Pharisees prided themselves upon their knowledge of Scriptures, but they had not read (so as to understand them) even its most common incidents], what David did, bwhen he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, cand took and ate the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat {awhich it was not lawful for him to eat,} neither for them that were with him, but only {csave} for the priests alone? [Jesus here refers to the incident recorded at 1Sa 21:1-6. Ahimelech and Abiathar have been confused by transcribers. It should read Ahimelech. However, we are not referred to the actions of Abiathar, but to those of [210] David. He went with his followers to the tabernacle at Nob near Jerusalem, and being hungry, asked bread of the priests. There was no bread at hand save the showbread. This bread was called showbread because it was “set out” or “exhibited” before Jehovah. It consisted of twelve loaves, which were baked upon the sabbath, and were placed, hot, in two rows upon the showbread table every sabbath day. The twelve old loaves which were then removed were to be eaten by the priests and no one else ( Lev 24:5-9). It was these twelve old loaves which were given to David ( 1Sa 21:6). Since the showbread was baked on the sabbath, the law itself ordered work on that day. The vast majority of commentators look upon this passage as teaching that necessity abrogates what they are pleased to call the ceremonial laws of God. Disregarding the so-called ceremonial laws of God is a very dangerous business, as is witnessed by the case of Uzzah ( 2Sa 6:6, 2Sa 6:7), and Uzziah ( 2Ch 26:16-23). Christ never did it, and strenuously warned those who followed the example of the scribes and Pharisees in teaching such a doctrine ( Mat 5:17-20). The law of necessity was not urged by him as a justifiable excuse for making bread during the forty days’ fast of the temptation. Life is not higher than law. “All that a man hath will he give for his life,” is Satan’s doctrine, not Christ’s ( Job 2:4). The real meaning, as we understand it, will be developed below in our treatment of Num 28:9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily [211] sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties. The profanation of the Sabbath, however, was not real, but merely apparent. Jesus cites this priestly work to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not universal, and hence might not include what the disciples had done. The fourth commandment did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded.] 6 But I say [asserting his own authority] unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. [The word “greater” is in the neuter gender, and the literal meaning is therefore “a greater thing than the temple.” The contrast may be between the service of the temple and the service of Christ, or it may be a contrast between the divinity, sacredness, or divine atmosphere which hallowed the temple, and the divinity or Godhead of Christ. But, however we take it, the meaning is ultimately a contrast between Christ and the temple, similar to the contrast between himself and Solomon, etc. ( Mat 12:41, Mat 12:42). It was a startling saying as it fell on Jewish ears, for to them the temple at Jerusalem was the place honored by the very Shekinah of the unseen God, and the only place of effective worship and atonement. If the temple service justified the priests in working upon the Sabbath day, much more did the service of Jesus, who was not only the God of the temple, but was himself the true temple, of which the other was merely the symbol, justify these disciples in doing that which was not legally, but merely traditionally, unlawful. Jesus here indirectly anticipates the priesthood of his disciples– 1Pe 2:5.] 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. [This passage is quoted from Hos 6:6, and is reiterated at Mat 9:13. It is an assertion of the superiority of inward life over outward form, for the form is nothing if the heart is wrong. The saying is first suggested by David himself ( Psa 51:16, Psa 51:17), [212] after which it is stated by Hosea and amplified by Paul ( 1Co 13:3). The quotation has a double reference both to David and the disciples as above indicated. Having given the incident in the life of David, Jesus passes on from it without comment, that he may lay down by another example the principle which justified it. This principle we have just treated, and we may state it thus: A higher law, where it conflicts with a lower one, suspends or limits the lower one at the point of conflict. Thus the higher laws of worship in the temple suspended the lower law of sabbath observance, and thus also the higher law of mercy suspended the lower law as to the showbread when David took it and mercifully gave it to his hungry followers, and when God in mercy permitted this to be done. And thus, had they done what was otherwise unlawful, the disciples would have been justified in eating by the higher law of Christ’s service. And thus also would Christ have been justified in permitting them to eat by the law of mercy, which was superior to that which rendered the seventh day to God as a sacrifice.] 8 For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath. b27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 so that the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. [The expression “Son of man” is used eighty-eight times in the New Testament, and always means the Messiah, and not man generally. The Sabbath was made for man’s convenience and blessing, and so Jesus, who was complete and perfect manhood, was Lord of it. But men who were incomplete and imperfect in their manhood, can not trust their fallible judgment to tamper with it. Though the day was made for man, this fact would not entitle man to use it contrary to the laws under which it was granted. As Lord of the day Jesus had a right to interpret it and to apply it, and to substitute the Lord’s day for it. In asserting his Lordship over it, Jesus takes the question outside the range of argument and brings it within the range of authority.] [213]
[FFG 209-213]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
CHAPTER 14
JESUS RETURNS TO GALILEE
Mat 12:1-18; Mar 2:23-28, and Luk 6:1-5. We find that our Lord spent but two weeks at Jerusalem during this tour, preaching and working miracles all the time, of which we have no record; but the fifth chapter of John giving us one notable miracle and one powerful sermon. Luke informs us that the incident, here recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, took place on the Sabbath following the Passover, which began on the Sabbath, ran through the intervening week, and closed on the ensuing Sabbath; thus, according to Luke’s testimony, giving our Savior two-weeks’ evangelistic tour in Jerusalem. Inquiry naturally rises why He returns to Galilee so soon, when He had spent about ten months of the preceding year in that country. Our Lord gives the reason (Joh 4:44). Jerusalem and Judea were the regions of great population, while Galilee was the more thinly settled. Again, as He was a native Galilean, His ministry would not attract the amount of popular attention there as at Jerusalem, and especially on occasions of the great festivals, thus augmenting the probability of their cutting short His ministry by crowning Him King. Therefore He did most of His preaching and performed most of His mighty works in the comparatively thinly populated regions of Galilee.
Mark: And it came to pass that He was journeying on the Sabbath, through the corn-fields, and His disciples began to pursue the journey, plucking the ears [i.e., the wheat-heads]. And the Pharisees continued to say to Him, Behold what they are doing on the Sabbath, which is not lawful. And He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he had need, and he and those who were with him were hungry? How he entered into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and he gave it to those who were with him? And He said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. Matthew: Have you not read in the law that the priests on the Sabbath in the ‘temple do profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I
say unto you, There is One here greater than the temple. If you had known what that is, I wish mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all relate this incident, which transpired on the Sabbath following the Passover, while our Lord and His disciples were prosecuting their pedestrian journey back to Galilee. Remember that we are now in the beginning of the second year of our Savior’s ministry, two more years and two Passovers yet to come. We see our Lord’s critics raise no objection to their plucking the wheat-heads, rubbing them out in their hands and eating them (it is more probable it was barley, as this occurred about the first of May, the beginning of the barley harvest, the wheat coming on about a month later), as this privilege was granted in the law of Moses (Deu 21:2); but they arraign Him for violating the Sabbath, as this happened to take place on that day, showing how very fanatical they were, that they wouldn’t allow them to get a little something to eat on the Sabbath. Excessive zeal on non- essentials has characterized the fallen Churches of every age. At this point they murdered the martyrs, too blind to see their holy lives, and actually massacring them because they did not conform to the non-essential human regulations of a fallen ecclesiasticism. Our Savior here gives them the case of the priests, who offer the sacrifices, and work hard in the temple on the Sabbath, and are blameless. He also corroborates it by the case of David (1Sa 21:1-7), who, in his flight from Saul, came to Nob, in the days of Abiathar, the priest, he and his men, in their extremity and destitution, eating the shewbread in the temple, which was lawful only for the priests to eat. I wish mercy and not sacrifice is the key to this entire problem. God wants a broken heart and a contrite spirit, a penitent soul, on whom He can have mercy, free and unlimited i.e., save him for nothing, except the vicarious work of Christ instead of a great sacrifice, offered in pomp and demonstration by some rich person, whose heart is far from Him, vainly flattering himself that he can pay his way to heaven. In this way millions of wealthy Church members make their bed in hell, depending on their offerings to the Lord, instead of falling, a miserable, bankrupt suppliant, at the feet of Jesus, and there crying for mercy till the heavens bow, and God comes down and answers the prayer of the broken-hearted penitent in the mighty uplift of His omnipotent hand.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Mar 2:23-28. Sabbath Observance.This incident occurs in the summer: the only clear reference to a season of the year in the gospel. The disciples offend by reaping on the Sabbath. The evangelist brings together two answers. The first admits the validity of the Law and pleads historic exceptions. The second lays down a general principle by which the Law is to be interpreted. The aim of the Law must be considered. On Mar 2:27 Sabatier comments: A saying, wonderful alike in its depth and its simplicity, which denies not only the Pharisaic idea of the Sabbath but also the scholastic idea of the Church and the absolutist notion of the State.
Mar 2:26. The reference to Abiathar is a mistake, probably due to the evangelist, possibly to a glossator. But the act of David is described with some traditional embellishments. Davids entry into the sanctuary and the presence of his companions are suppositions not necessarily involved in 1Sa 21:1-7 (Loisy, p. 101).
Mar 2:27. And he said unto them: a simple formula frequently prefixed to detailed sayings of Jesus, and often used by Mk. to link together utterances which came to him isolated in tradition; cf. Mar 4:11; Mar 4:13, Mar 7:9, Mar 9:1.
Mar 2:28. If Son of Man (Mar 8:31*, p. 691) be Messianic, the verse is best taken as representing the evangelists conclusion. The alternative is that it means man.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 23
Availing themselves of a permission given in Deuteronomy 23:24,25.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:23 {4} And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the {h} sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
(4) Secondly, because they do not distinguish between the laws which God made concerning things, and the laws that they made concerning the same things, which are not at all based on the law.
(h) Literally, “on the Sabbaths”, that is, on the holy days.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Picking grain on the Sabbath 2:23-28 (cf. Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Jesus’ disciples did something that the Mosaic Law permitted when they plucked the ears of wheat or barley (Deu 23:25). However by doing it on a Sabbath day they violated a traditional Pharisaic interpretation of the law. The Pharisees taught that to do what the disciples did constituted reaping, threshing, and winnowing, and that was forbidden work on the Sabbath (Exo 20:10). [Note: Mishnah Shabbath 7:2.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6
The remaining two instances of opposition from the religious leaders arose over and concerned Sabbath observance. In the first case, the Pharisees opposed Jesus for permitting His disciples to do something they considered sinful. In the second, they opposed Him for doing something Himself that they objected to.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER 2:23-28 (Mar 2:23-28)
THE SABBATH
“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 shewbread, 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.” Mar 2:23-28 (R.V.)
TWICE in succession Christ had now asserted the freedom of the soul against His Jewish antagonists. He was free to eat with sinners, for their good, and His followers were free to disregard fasts, because the Bridegroom was with them. A third attack in the same series is prepared. The Pharisees now take stronger ground, since the law itself enforced the obligation of the Sabbath. Even Isaiah, the most free-spirited of all the prophets, in the same passage where he denounced the fasts of the self-righteous, bade men to keep their foot from the Sabbath (Isa 58:13-14). Here they felt sure of their position; and when they found the disciples, in a cornfield where the long stems had closed over the path, “making a way,” which was surely forbidden labor, and this by “plucking the ears,” which was reaping, and then rubbing these in their hands to reject the chaff, which was winnowing, they cried out in affected horror, Behold, why do they that which is not lawful? To them it mattered nothing that the disciples really hungered, and that abstinence, rather than the slight exertion which they condemned, would cause real inconvenience and unrest.
Perhaps the answer of our Lord has been as much misunderstood as any other words He ever spoke. It has been assumed that He spoke across the boundary between the new dispensation and the old, as One from whose movements the restraints of Judaism had entirely fallen away, to those who were still entangled. And it has been inferred that the Fourth Commandment was no more than such a restraint, now thrown off among the rest. But this is quite a misapprehension both of His position and theirs. On earth He was a minister of the circumcision. He bade His disciples to observe and do all that was commanded from the seat of Moses. And it is by Old Testament precedent, and from Old Testament principles, that He now refutes the objection of the Pharisees. This is what gives the passage half its charm, this discovery of freedom like our own in the heart of the stern old Hebrew discipline, as a fountain and flowers on the face of a granite crag, this demonstration that all we now enjoy is developed from what already lay in germ enfolded in the law.
David and his followers, when at extremity, had eaten the shewbread which it was not lawful for them to eat. It is a striking assertion. We should probably have sought a softer phrase. We should have said that in other circumstances it would have been unlawful, that only necessity made it lawful; we should have refused to look straight in the face the naked ugly fact that David broke the law. But Jesus was not afraid of any fact. He saw and declared that the priests in the Temple itself profaned the Sabbath when they baked the shewbread and when they circumcised children. They were blameless, not because the Fourth Commandment remained inviolate, but because circumstances made it right for them to profane the Sabbath. And His disciples were blameless also, upon the same principle, that the larger obligation overruled the lesser, that all ceremonial observance gave way to human need, that mercy is a better thing than sacrifice.
And thus it appeared that the objectors were themselves the transgressors; they had condemned the guiltless.
A little reflection will show that our Lord’s bold method, His startling admission that David and the priests alike did that which was not lawful, is much more truly reverential than our soft modern compromises, our shifty device for persuading ourselves that in various permissible and even necessary deviation from prescribed observances, there is no real infraction of any law whatever.
To do this, we reduce to a minimum the demands of the precept. We train ourselves to think, not of its full extension, but of what we can compress it into. Therefore, in future, even when no urgency exists, the precept has lost all beyond this minimum; its sharp edges are filed away. Jesus leaves it to resume all its energy, when mercy no longer forbids the sacrifice.
The text, then, says nothing about the abolition of a Day of Rest. On the contrary, it declares that this day is not a Jewish but a universal ordinance, it is made for man. At the same time, it refuses to place the Sabbath among the essential and inflexible laws of right and wrong. It is made for man, for his physical repose and spiritual culture; man was not made for it, as he is for purity, truth, and godliness. Better for him to die than outrage these; they are the laws of his very being; he is royal by serving them; in obeying them he obeys his God. It is not thus with anything external, ceremonial, any ritual, any rule of conduct, however universal be its range, however permanent its sanctions. The Sabbath is such a rule, permanent, far-reaching as humanity, made “for man.” But this very fact, Jesus tells us, is the reason why He Who represented the race and its interests, was “Lord even of the Sabbath.”
Let those who deny the Divine authority of this great institution ponder well the phrase which asserts its universal range, and which finds it a large assertion of the mastery of Christ that He is Lord “even of the Sabbath.” But those who have scruples about the change of day by which honor is paid to Christ’s resurrection, and those who would make burdensome and dreary, a horror to the young and a torpor to the old, what should be called a delight and honorable, these should remember that the ordinance is blighted, root and branch, when it is forbidden to minister to the physical or spiritual welfare of the human race.