Mark 2:23-27

Mark 2:23–28 (KJV (WS))

Mark 2:23–28 KJV (WS)

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.

Introduction

Our passage tonight is the 4th of 5 controversies that Mark records between Jesus and the pharisees.

This is the first of two Sabbath controversies.

This 1st one pertains to something Jesus’ disciples do.

The 2nd on pertains to something Jesus, himself does.

In these controversies we continue to see the clash between the legalistic regulations of the pharisees and the grace-based ministry of Jesus.

We could also say that this a conflict between freedom in Christ and the oppression of religion.

This extends even to the most frivolous of subject matters as we will see in this passage.

Another controversy is stirred up by the pharisees. vs 23-24

It was the Sabbath day.

Jesus and his disciples are walking through some fields.

They are probably leaving or heading toward the synagogue.

Most fields of any size, in those days, had paths that crossed through them.

This would have been the hard soil of Jesus’ sower parable.

It was a defined area for people to walk so they didn’t tamp down the crops.

Along the way, something horrific happened.

The disciples got hungry.

As they walked through the field they began to pluck some of the grain and eat it.

Now, if you had not further idea of what this passage said, you would think that this would be the problem.

The disciples of Jesus are stealing the crops of these farmers.

This was actually a broadly accepted custom o theirs.

It was not illegal for a hungry person to take some of a neighbors fruit or grain.

As long as you didn’t use any harvesting tools, and you didn’t put any in a container, you could snatch a snack as you pleased..

Deuteronomy 23:25 KJV (WS)

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.

Now, we know there will be a problem, but it won’t be because of thievery.

The pharisees do take issue with their actions.

Seems like there are literally Pharisees lurking behind every grain stalk.

What is their problem this time?

To them, plucking was considered to be a kind of reaping.

The disciples had reaped.

They had threshed the corn.

They had prepared a meal.

This may sound ridiculous.

This was the prevailing rules of the day.

The pharisees had taken the few, generic restrictions of Moses and expanded it to a precise catalog of restricted events.

No reaping, threshing, winnowing, or preparing a meal on the sabbath day.

Overall, there were 39 prohibited actions on the sabbath day.

These 39 actions had 1000’s of applications.

In their eyes, the disciples had violated the sabbath.

Openly violating sabbath traditions was a declaration of war against the religious establishment.

As with the matter of fasting, the pharisees question Jesus about the actions of his disciples.

Jesus responds to the question of the pharisees. vs 25-28

Although only the disciples had “broken” the law, Jesus fields the question.

Before we get into his response, What law had they broken?

The sabbath desecrations that Jesus’ disciples were accused of were only of the pharisaical regulations.

What the disciples had engaged would only be called work by the most strictest of interpretations.

But that’s exactly what the pharisees promoted.

They upheld their interpretation of the law as being equal to the law itself.

Jesus allows their assumption of the equal authority of their commentary and of the text to pass unchallenged.

Instead, He addresses their question by reminding them of an example from the Old Testament.

He offers an example of a similar breach in the law.

An example that they are either willfully ignoring or they are ignorant of it.

Notice the irony of Jesus’ question, “Have you never read?”

Of course they had read, it was just an inconvenient truth that they would rather ignore.

Pharisees always stress one or two passages and fail to combine the whole of scripture on a given subject.

The passage that Jesus is referring to is 1 Samuel 21 when David, on the run from Saul, eats the shew bread at the tabernacle.

The shew bread was hallowed bread.

It could be eaten, but only the priests could eat it.

12 loaves.

6.25 lbs of flour each.

Arranged in 2 rows on a gold table.

David comes along and asks for food.

The priests have none to give him.

David asks for the shew bread and they give it to him.

David wasn’t starving, but he was very hungry.

The bread David received was not what had been currently laying in the Holy Place.

This was a break in the law.

A break in the ceremonial law.

There was nothing morally wrong with eating the shew bread.

It was a ceremonial thing that God had established.

The pharisees should have understood this.

One author points out that there were many priests that broke the ceremonial law in the temple every sabbath day when they worked to offer sacrifices.

Jesus knows that the pharisees will not condemn David in this instance.

He was too revered to be indicted for breaking the ceremonial law.

So, Jesus then moves on to his second attack on their hypocritical reasoning.

He lays out a principle regarding the ceremonial law, especially the Sabbath.

This principle governs the illustrative precedent and all future controversies.

The sabbath was made for man.

The sabbath was meant to be a blessing to man.

The sabbath and the rest of the ceremonial law is a means to an end.

That end is to achieve the highest good of men.

There must be a subordination of the ceremonial law to men’s needs.

The end is more important than the means.

If there is any collision between the two, the means must give way to the end.

The new covenant without its ceremonies would supersede the old covenant with its ceremonies.

Sabath, sacrifices, and the temple would all disappear.

But there is another reason as well.

Jesus is the Lord of the sabbath.

As lord of the sabbath, he is the master of it.

This means that Jesus gets to define its design.

He also has the right to overrule their rules.

In one conversation, Jesus establishes the fact that the sabbath is built on grace rather than regulation.

Application

We live in the New Covenant that Jesus came to establish.

It is the current governing context of the world.

It is a context that is defined by grace.

There was always grace in God’s economy.

It should be more prevalent in the New Covenant.

But there are still pharisees that must be contended with.

Modern pharisees are as concerned with regulations as they have ever been.

We have to remember a few things to combat them.

External observances are not permanent, unalterable obligations.

The sabbath was part of the ceremonial law and was therefore elastic.

Living under grace does not exempt us from the moral law.

Moral duties remain imperative whether they lead to good or evil.

Man is made for the moral law.

It is supreme whether obedience leads to life or death.

Trying to mix Judaism and Christianity introduces a false and dangerous legalism.

Christian Sunday is not the replacement for the Jewish Sabbath.

Righteousness can not be tied to outward regulations.

Conclusion

Pharisaism is alive and well today.

Jesus dealt with it and we will too.

The key is to live a biblical and principled life.

This will insulate us from the pressure of the Pharisees in our world.