10

The Lord of the Sabbath—Part 1
(Mark 2:23–28)

And 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. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how 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?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (2:23–28)

The biblical Gospels are more than just historical accounts of the earthly life of the Lord Jesus. They are also christological treatises revealing the transcendence of His heavenly character. Written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the four histories represent the perfect blending of biography and theology—a masterful combination of factual precision and doctrinal depth. Not only do they recount the story of Jesus’ life and ministry with absolute accuracy, they simultaneously present the infinite glories of His divine person, so that their readers may come to know Him for who He really is: the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Like the other three writers, Mark’s purpose was to reveal and declare the truth about the person and work of the Lord Jesus. He began his gospel by declaring Jesus to be the divine messianic King, introducing Him with a royal title: “Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). In the verses that follow, Jesus is identified as “the Lord” (1:3), the coming One (1:7), the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1:8), the “beloved Son” of the Father (1:11), the One who offers the gospel of the kingdom (1:14), and “the Holy One of God” (1:24). By chapter 2, it is clear that Jesus possessed the sovereign power to authenticate such elevated titles as He demonstrated unsurpassed authority over Satan and temptation (1:12–13), demons and demon possession (1:25–26), sickness and disease (1:29–34), sin and its effects (2:5–12), and even the social stigmas of first-century Judaism (2:13–17). His works convincingly validated His words, proving beyond any legitimate doubt that He was the Son of God, worthy of every elevated title and glorious superlative that could ever be bestowed on Him.

In Mark 2:23–28, we are introduced to another of His titles—Lord of the Sabbath (v. 28). That designation, coming from Jesus’ own lips, underscored His divine authority while again setting Him in direct conflict with the hypocritical religious leaders of Judaism. Conflict was inevitable whenever Jesus interacted with the Pharisees and scribes. He embodied the truth (John 14:6); they represented a system of superficial pretense and false religion. In the same way that light pierces the darkness, Christ’s words illuminated Israel’s corrupt religious establishment—disclosing the dead traditionalism that characterized its most ardent defenders. Jesus refused to mince words, exposing the Pharisees and scribes for who they really were: spiritually blind false teachers who turned their disciples into sons of hell (cf. Matt. 7:15–20; 15:14; 23:15). The Lord’s dogmatic declarations left no room for ambiguity or ambivalence. Would His hearers remain trapped as slaves in a system of extrabiblical rules and regulations or be set free by the gospel of grace through faith in the Savior (cf. John 8:31–36)?

When Jesus declared Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath, He struck a severe blow at the entire system of merit and works-righteousness that found its focal point in the Sabbath. The seventh day of every week had become the platform for showcasing Pharisaic legalism. The command to observe the Sabbath, like the other nine commandments, was intended to promote love toward God and other people (cf. Ex. 20:1–17; Mark 12:28–31). What God established as a day of reverence toward Him and refreshment from work, the Pharisees and scribes transformed into a day of stifling regulation and restriction. Just as Jesus confronted the Sadducees for making the temple a den of robbers (Matt. 21:13), He blasted the Pharisees for turning a day of weekly worship into a rigorous burden of extraneous rule keeping. By openly defying the man-made traditions regarding the Sabbath, Jesus put Himself in direct conflict with the religious leaders at their most sensitive point.

The religious leaders viewed Jesus as a serious threat to their religious system. He, conversely, rebuked them for being imposters. With righteous indignation, He condemned them for perpetuating a burdensome system of external ritualism. They considered themselves holy; He called them hypocrites (cf. Matt. 23). But rather than repenting, they hardened their hearts against Him. The more Jesus preached, the deeper their resentment toward Him grew. The fact that He openly associated with the outcasts of society, even calling a tax collector to be one of His closest disciples (2:14), only added to the tension. They mockingly called Him the friend of sinners (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). He embraced the title, reminding them that He “did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” to repentance (Mark 2:17).

By claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus essentially declared His authority over the whole of Jewish religion, because Sabbath-day observance was its high point. The implications of Christ’s claim struck deeply. The pattern for a day of rest was established at creation, when God Himself rested on the seventh day (Gen. 2:2). Furthermore, it was God who wrote in the tablets of stone in Exodus 20:8, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (cf. Ex. 31:12–17; Deut. 5:12–15). God was the One who established the Sabbath. Thus, to claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath was to claim deity, a reality was certainly not lost on the Pharisees and scribes, who became incensed by what they perceived to be blasphemy.

John 5:9–18 recounts an event that occurred in Judea shortly before the events recorded in Mark 2:23–28. (For a complete harmony of the Gospels, see John MacArthur, One Perfect Life [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012].) On that occasion, which took place on a Sabbath day, Jesus healed a man who had been severely ill for thirty-eight years. The Pharisees, rather than responding with compassion, were outraged because Jesus told the man to pick up his bed mat and walk home—an act that violated rabbinic regulations for the Sabbath. As John explains,

The Jewish religious leaders hated Jesus because He violated their man-made Sabbath regulations. They detested Him all the more because, in the process of ignoring their extrabiblical rules, He claimed equality with God. When Jesus designated Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, He was not getting sidetracked with peripheral issues. With that single claim, Jesus directly assaulted apostate Judaism while simultaneously declaring His divinity. He called Israel to return to the true purpose of the Sabbath—the purpose He Himself had established for it when He issued the fourth commandment to Moses centuries earlier (cf. John 5:46; 8:58).

The Sabbath was intended to be a day of worship and rest for God’s people under the old covenant. The word “sabbath” itself is derived from the Hebrew term shabbat, meaning “to rest,” “to cease,” or “to desist.” On the seventh day of each week, the Israelites were to refrain from working in order to focus their attention on honoring the Lord. Over the ensuing fifteen centuries, from the time of Moses to the ministry of Jesus, the Sabbath accumulated a vast number of additional rabbinic rules and restrictions, which made observing the seventh day an overpowering burden (cf. Matt. 15:6, 9). No less than twenty-four chapters of the Talmud (the central text of rabbinic Judaism) focus on Sabbath regulations, meticulously detailing the almost innumerable specifics of what constituted acceptable behavior.

Almost no area of life was spared from the fastidious Sabbath regulations of the rabbis, which were designed to gain God’s favor. There were laws about wine, honey, milk, spitting, writing, and getting dirt off of clothes. Anything that might be contrived as work was forbidden. Thus, on a Sabbath, scribes could not carry their pens, tailors their needles, or students their books. To do so might tempt them to work on the Sabbath. For that matter, carrying anything heavier than a dried fig was forbidden; and if the object in question had been picked up in a public place, it could only be set down in a private place. If the object were tossed into the air, it had to be caught with the same hand. To catch it with the other hand would constitute work, and therefore be a violation of the Sabbath. No insects could be killed. No candle or flame could be lit or extinguished. Nothing could be bought or sold. No bathing was allowed, since water might spill onto the floor and accidentally wash it. No furniture could be moved inside the house, since it might create ruts in the dirt floor and thereby constitute plowing. An egg could not be boiled even if all one did was place it in the hot desert sand. A radish could not be left in salt because it would become a pickle, and pickling constituted work. Sick people were only allowed enough treatment to keep them alive. Any medical treatment that improved their condition was considered work and therefore prohibited. It was not even permissible for women to look in a mirror, since they might be tempted to pull out any gray hairs they spotted. Nor were they allowed to wear jewelry, since jewelry weighs more than a dried fig.

Other activities that were banned on the Sabbath included washing clothes, dyeing wool, shearing sheep, spinning wool, tying or untying a knot, sowing seed, plowing a field, reaping a harvest, binding sheaves, threshing wheat, grinding flour, kneading dough, hunting a deer, or preparing its meat. One of the more interesting restrictions related to the distance people could travel on the Sabbath. A person was not allowed to travel more than 3,000 feet from home (or to take more than 1,999 steps). Due to practical concerns, the rabbis devised creative ways to get around this. If one placed food at the 3,000-foot point before the Sabbath began, that point was considered an extension of one’s home, thereby enabling a person to travel another 3,000 feet. Or, if a rope or piece of wood was placed across a narrow street or alley, it was considered a doorway—making it part of one’s home and allowing the 3,000 feet of travel to begin there. Even in modern times, Jewish neighborhoods connect houses together using cords and ropes (known as an “eruv”). Doing so, from the perspective of rabbinic law, creates a single home out of every connected building—allowing people to move freely within the defined area without being limited to the 3,000-foot restriction, and to carry certain household items like keys, medicine, strollers, canes, and babies. (For a detailed discussion of the rabbinic Sabbath restrictions, see Alfred Edersheim, “The Ordinances and Law of the Sabbath as Laid Down in the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud,” appendix XVII in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 2:777–87.)

The man-made traditions perpetuated by the Pharisees and scribes clearly placed a crushing weight on the people (cf. Matt. 15:3; 23:4; Luke 11:46; Acts 15:10). In contrast, Jesus welcomed His hearers with liberating words of true refreshment: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt. 11:28–30). The Lord was not talking about relieving physical labor. Rather, He was offering freedom to those under the burden of an oppressive, sabbatarian legalism from which they could get no relief and which could not gain them salvation.

As a side note, it is important to understand that observing the Sabbath is not required of believers in the church age (Col. 2:16; cf. Rom. 14:5–6; Gal. 4:9–10). The early church set aside Sunday, the first day of the week, as the day on which it gathered for worship, instruction, and fellowship (cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). However, it is not accurate to equate the “Lord’s Day” (Sunday) with the Old Testament Sabbath, since the New Testament abrogates the Sabbath completely. Still this instruction by our Lord regarding that day (in Mark 2:23–28) contains rich christological truths for the church.

In this passage, Mark records the first of two incidents in which Christ directly challenged the Pharisees’ false understanding of the Sabbath. The second incident (recorded in Mark 3:1–6) took place in the synagogue. This incident (2:23–28), which probably happened one week earlier as Jesus and His disciples were walking through some grain fields, can be understood under four headings: the Sabbath incident (v. 23), the scornful indictment (v. 24), the scriptural illustration (vv. 25–26), and the sovereign interpreter (vv. 27–28).

THE SABBATH INCIDENT

And 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. (2:23)

On this particular Sabbath, Jesus and His disciples were walking through fields where grain was growing. The Pharisees were dogging His steps carefully. As He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, some of His disciples became hungry (Matt. 12:1). And so, they began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. Luke adds that they were “rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain” (Luke 6:1). The crop being grown in these particular fields was probably wheat or barley. In Israel, grain ripens from April to August, indicating that this event likely took place in spring or summer.

In the ancient world, it was normal for pathways to crisscross fields, so travelers traversed through crops routinely. Roads were scarce, especially in rural places, so travel usually took place on wide paths that stretched from one town to the next, passing through fields and pastures. As they journeyed on their way, people walked alongside the crops that lined both sides of the path. In light of this, God had prescribed a provision for His people. According to Deuteronomy 23:25, “When you enter your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor’s standing grain.” To harvest someone else’s grain (with a sickle) was not permitted for obvious reasons. To pluck a few heads of grain while walking beside a ripened field of wheat or barley was a provision made by God Himself.

Jesus’ disciples were doing exactly what the Old Testament permitted them to do. When they picked off the heads of grain, rubbed the heads in their hands to remove the husk and shell, and then ate the kernel, their actions were perfectly allowable within the purposes of God, but not in the minds of religious Jews.

THE SCORNFUL INDICTMENT

The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (2:24)

It is hard to imagine how the Pharisees could have followed Jesus through the grain fields while staying within 3,000 feet of their homes. Whatever the justification for their own transgressions, they observed Jesus’ disciples violating rabbinic law and became incensed. They charged the disciples with doing what is not lawful. As noted, Jesus and His followers had not transgressed any biblical law. The Pharisees had elevated their own man-made tradition over Scripture (cf. Matt. 15:3, 6). They established themselves as the authority over Sabbath-day observances, usurping the rightful position of the only true Lord of the Sabbath—as Jesus would soon make clear.

When the Pharisees saw what the disciples were doing, they were outraged. Offended that Jesus would allow His followers to commit such a blatant violation, they were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” According to Luke 6:2, they did not limit their attack only to the disciples but targeted Jesus as well. The only law being transgressed was that of the Pharisees. By rabbinic standards, the disciples were guilty of several forbidden actions: reaping (by picking the grain), sifting (by removing the husks and shell), threshing (by rubbing the heads of grain), winnowing (by throwing the chaff in the air), and preparing a meal (by eating the grain after they had cleaned it). None of those activities were permitted on the Sabbath.

Not concerned about the hunger or well-being of Jesus’ disciples, the Pharisees’ only interest was in protecting the petty regulations that made up their hypocritical system of external religion. They followed Jesus to scrutinize His behavior, solely to find something for which to indict Him. The heart attitude behind their question was one of hatred toward Jesus, because He and His followers lived in such open defiance of their system of religion, in which the Sabbath was central.

THE SCRIPTURAL ILLUSTRATION

And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how 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?” (2:25–26)

Without any apology, Jesus responded by challenging their authority and exposing their ignorance of the Old Testament. He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how 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?” Obviously, the Pharisees had read the story about David. But Jesus’ words highlighted the fact that, even though they knew the facts of the story, they were ignorant of its true meaning. Thus, He responded to their question with one of His own: Have you never read? The rhetorical question exposed the inexcusable ignorance of those who were the self-proclaimed experts on Scripture and the teachers of Israel (cf. Matt. 19:4; 21:42; 22:31; Mark 12:10; John 3:10). In effect, Jesus was asking them, “If you are such fastidious students of Scripture, why don’t you know what it says?”

The account to which Jesus referred is found in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. David, fleeing empty-handed from Gibeah to escape Saul, came to the tabernacle that was located at Nob, about a mile north of Jerusalem. Hungry and without proper provisions, David asked Ahimelech, the priest, for food.

The only bread at the tabernacle was “the bread of the Presence” (Ex. 25:30). Every Sabbath, twelve loaves of consecrated bread were baked and set on the gold table in the Holy Place. After the fresh loaves were placed, the priests were allowed to eat the week-old bread, but no one else was permitted to eat it (Lev. 24:9). Recognizing their need, Ahimelech showed compassion to David and his men by making an exception and giving them the consecrated bread. His only condition was that “the young men [must] have kept themselves from women” so that they would be ceremonially clean. Significantly, God did not punish either Ahimelech or David for their actions. He allowed a ceremonial law to be violated for the sake of meeting an urgent human need. In fact, the only person offended by Ahimelech’s act of kindness was the volatile King Saul (1 Sam. 22:11–18).

Jesus’ point, as illustrated by the Old Testament account, was that showing compassion, in God’s sight, always trumped strict adherence to ritual and ceremony. His illustration employed the familiar rabbinic style of arguing from the lesser to the greater. If it was permissible for Ahimelech, a human priest, to make an exception to God’s ceremonial law in order to aid David and his men, it was surely appropriate for the Son of God to disregard unbiblical rabbinic tradition in order to meet the needs of His disciples. The religious leaders were far more concerned with preserving their own authority than with the needs of anyone else. In a similar way to Saul’s pursuit of David to kill him, the Pharisees were already seeking to put the Son of David to death.

According to Matthew’s account (12:5–6), Jesus also told the Pharisees, “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.” By pointing to the example of the priests, Jesus demonstrated the inconsistency of the Pharisees’ own legalistic standard. Each Sabbath, the ministering priests were required to light fires for the altar and slaughter animals for sacrifice (cf. Num. 28:9–10; cf. Lev. 24:8–9). These activities clearly violated the rabbinic restrictions for what was permissible on the Sabbath. Yet, the Pharisees exonerated the priests of any wrongdoing. Even under the Pharisees’ own hyperlegalistic standard, some Sabbath violations were allowable and even considered necessary.

The Lord’s statement that “something greater than the temple is here” was nothing less than a statement of His deity. The only One greater than the temple (which symbolized the presence of God among His people) was God Himself. As the One greater than the temple, Jesus wielded the divine authority to condemn the practices of the Pharisees.

THE SOVEREIGN INTERPRETER

Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (2:27–28)

God never intended ceremony, ritual, and tradition to stand in the way of mercy, kindness, and goodness toward others. Thus, Jesus explained to the Pharisees that even originally the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. God’s purpose for the Sabbath day was to give His people a weekly rest. But the Pharisees had turned a divine blessing into a dreaded burden.

Matthew 12:7 notes that Jesus also told the Pharisees, “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” Quoting from a portion of Hosea 6:6, Jesus reminded His hearers that God designed the Sabbath to be a merciful day of spiritual reflection and physical recuperation for the people. By turning it into a burdensome day of restrictive observance, the Pharisees obscured its true purpose. The reality was that they were the real violators of the Sabbath. Their indifference to the needs of Jesus’ disciples, and their feigned indignation over the fact that their customs had been violated, demonstrated the bankruptcy and ungodliness of their religion.

The conflict was already at a fevered pitch when Jesus escalated the matter even higher. In verse 28, He declared to them, “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Without caveat or apology, Jesus claimed to be the sovereign ruler over the Sabbath. If there had been any ambiguity about His earlier claim, that “something greater than the temple is here” (Matt. 12:6), it was gone. Jesus was clearly claiming to be God, the Creator, and the One who designated the Sabbath in the first place and the sovereign over it (cf. John 1:1–3). He was the Son of Man, a messianic title from Daniel 7:13–14, the divine King who created the Sabbath and defined its parameters. The Pharisees prided themselves on being the authoritative interpreters of God’s Word and will. In their midst stood the One whose interpretation was infinitely more authoritative: the Son of God Himself.

As God in human flesh, He condemned their self-righteous attempts to please God. He was characterized by grace; they prided themselves on their works. He demonstrated mercy and compassion to people; they cared only about protecting their petty customs. He exemplified the true purpose of the Sabbath; they twisted a divine blessing into a dismal day of drudgery.

For the Pharisees, the Sabbath belonged to them. For centuries they had been working out its rules. When Jesus elevated Himself far above them and their rules by declaring Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath, their hostility and hatred could not be satisfied until they had Him murdered.