Mark 2:23-28 | Session 10 | Mark Rightly Divided

Mark 2:23-28 | Lord of the Sabbath

Verse 23 -

Twice in this verse there is mention of corn. However, corn as we know it (maize) did not exist in biblical times, so this was likely wheat or barley. The Greek word σπόριμος [sporimos] is used of any kind of grain that has a kernel. The English "corn" originally referred to the kernel and not to maize specifically. The text notes that this took place on the Sabbath. Further, the phrase "as they went" tells us that they were not harvesting, simply picking some grain as they journeyed.

According to the Torah, walking on the Sabbath was allowed, but carrying a burden was not.

👉 From **********[Chabad.org](http://Chabad.org)**********: Jewish law sets the maximum walking range from one’s city to 2,000 cubits (3,049.5 feet, 0.596 miles (960 meters). [However, this measurement starts 70 2/3 cubits (112.24 ft.) from the city limits.] Practically speaking, this means that you may not walk a straight line more than .598 miles (3161.74 ft.) in any direction in the wilds outside your city limits.” Furthermore, “unless there is more than 70 2/3 cubits between one house and the next, all contiguous housing is considered to be part of the same city. Therefore at times it would be permitted to walk even from one city to the next, as long as the whole way is populated.” [_********How Far Am I Allowed To Walk on Shabbat?********_ [https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/484235/jewish/How-far-am-I-allowed-to-walk-on-Shabbat.htm](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/484235/jewish/How-far-am-I-allowed-to-walk-on-Shabbat.htm)] Accessed August 2, 2023.

Verse 24 -

In this instance, the Pharisees were very direct in their question, deviating from their normal tactics in dealing with Jesus. However, every question carries an assumption. In this case, the assumption had to do with the legality of picking grain on the Sabbath.

The Torah law prohibited work on the Sabbath, according to Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15. While the Torah didn't define what "work" meant, the Pharisees developed a detailed interpretation of the law. This interpretation, in time, identified 39 categories of work that were forbidden on the Sabbath, including activities like sowing and reaping. Picking grain would be forbidden under this interpretation. Since the Sabbath laws applied to the entire community, including animals and property, the Pharisees likely saw the disciples' actions as a public violation of the Torah, affecting the entire community.

The Sabbath observance was a central feature of the identity of the Jewish nation. By observing the Sabbath, they set themselves apart from their Gentile neighbors and identified themselves as faithful followers of the Lord. In a positive light, this underscores why the Pharisees were so zealous in upholding these laws.

Verses 25-26 -

Jesus, skilled at responding to questions with questions, answered the Pharisees' accusation by referencing the actions of King David, who "ate the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests" (v. 25). It's critical not to misconstrue Jesus's argument here. He isn't implying "David broke the law, so I can too," but rather highlighting the Pharisees' inconsistency. They revered David, who explicitly violated the Torah Law, while they sought to destroy Jesus (Mark 3:6), who faithfully observed it.

Jesus didn't explicitly challenge the Pharisees' oral tradition here, though he would often imply criticism in later interactions. His reference to David's actions served to put them on the defensive, subtly shifting the dynamics of the conversation.

Jesus cites an incident found in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where David and his men, in need, ate the shewbread or 'bread of the Presence.' This bread symbolized God's continual presence with His people and was usually reserved for the priests.

However, there is an apparent discrepancy. In the Samuel account, the priest who gave David the bread is named Ahimelech, not Abiathar. Critics of biblical infallibility often cite this as an error. Yet it is worth noting that if Jesus had been factually incorrect, the Pharisees would surely have seized upon it. Most sources suggest that Ahimelech and Abiathar were father and son, with Abiathar being a more prominent figure during David's reign. Hence, "Abiathar" could be a figure of speech, a “synecdoche” in which the whole refers to the parts, referring to the time of Abiathar. Others claim that Ahimelech and Abiathar were interchangeable names. This detail does not undermine the infallibility of Scripture but rather invites us to explore the richness and complexity of biblical interpretation.

Verse 27 -

Here, the Lord gives His interpretation of the Sabbath, stating that it was created for the benefit of man and not to be served by man. However, in the oral tradition of the Pharisees, the Sabbath became a burden rather than a blessing. Thus, even in the age of the Law, the Lord demonstrated His character for grace.

It is unfortunate that our human tendency is towards legalism, rule-making, and creating burdensome ways of living, rather than being grace-giving people. Even grace-focused doctrinal groups often become “pharisaical” in their oral traditions.

It is important to note that the Lord was not dismissing the Torah obligations for Sabbath. Rather He was stating that these obligations were for the good of man and should be looked upon as beneficial in themselves without adding endlessly to their commandments.

👉 Regarding our tendency toward legalism, the French Revolution serves as an example. During the Reign of Terror, from September 1793 to July 1794, the ideals of the Enlightenment were implemented with uncompromising and violent fervor under the Committee of Public Safety, led by Maximilien Robespierre. The period, which aimed to establish liberty from monarchy and established religion, saw the enactment of repressive measures, including mass executions, to suppress counter-revolutionary activities and threats to the newly established republic. What began as an assertion of citizen rights and freedoms transformed into a regime of fear and suspicion, where deviation from the new revolutionary 'norm' was severely punished. This paradoxical swing from radical liberty to stringent legalism demonstrates the dangers of excessive legalism.

Verse 28 -

The word "therefore" in this verse leads us to a significant pronouncement about Jesus's ministry and identity. Here, Jesus introduces Himself as the "Son of man," a title that carries profound Messianic implications. This title is drawn from Daniel 7:13-14, where the "Son of man" is described as a divine figure who will have everlasting dominion and authority over all peoples.

However, the assertion that the Son of Man is the "Lord of the Sabbath" goes beyond merely claiming a Messianic title. By associating Himself with the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus is claiming divine authority over the Sabbath itself. In doing so, Jesus is stating that the authority to interpret and apply the Sabbath law rests with Him, rather than with the Pharisaic interpretations of the time.

It's worth noting that while Jesus is not explicitly claiming to be the Messiah in this verse, His self-designation as the Son of Man and the Lord of the Sabbath implicitly alludes to His Messianic role and His divine authority.

About this episode