BAPTIST BIBLE SEMINARY

THE SON OF MAN’S AUTHORITY OVER THE SABBATH (MARK 2:23-28)

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO

DR. WAYNE SLUSSER

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

EXEGESIS OF MARK

NT811

BY

THOMAS A. OVERMILLER

CLARKS SUMMIT, PA

MARCH 2019

1

THE SON OF MAN’S AUTHORITY OVER THE SABBATH (MARK 2:23-26)

Introduction

Nestled in his record of Christ’s early Galilean ministry, Mark featured a brief episode in

which some Pharisees ask Christ a riveting question. What first appears to be a stunning and

insensitive violation of the Mosaic law by Christ’s disciples turns out to be a moment of strategic

divine revelation. In this instance, Christ reestablished the true significance of Sabbath

regulations. More importantly, he revealed himself as the divine Son of Man, the supreme

authority over the Sabbath, creation, and mankind. A careful study of this passage will provide

the reader with valuable Christological insights and discipleship perspectives.

Translational and Exegetical Factors

2:23 Now it happened that he passed through the grain fields during the Sabbath, and his disciples began

making [their] way, picking heads of grain.

The opening pair of words, καὶ ἐγένετο (“and it happened”), appears in Mark seven times

in six verses.1 This occurrence resembles two others (1:9 and 4:4), each of which mark the start

of a new event which happened in the past.2 The subsequent infinitival clause (παραπορεύεσθαι

διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, “passing through the grain fields”) functions as the subject of ἐγένετο.3 The

prepositional phrase, ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν (“during the Sabbath”), functions as a temporal marker

1 1:9; 2:23; 4:4, 39; 9:7 (2x), 26. 2 Rodney J. Decker, Mark 1-8: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the

Greek New Testament, Kindle ed. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 63. 3 Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, UBS

Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 26.

2

that describes when this event occurred.4 The plural τοῖς σάββασιν follows the conventional

practice of using a plural form to refer to a singular concept, like the name of a festival.5 The

prepositional phrase διὰ τῶν σπορίμων (“through the grain fields”) functions as a spatial marker

that describes where Jesus was traveling, using an article to substantize the plural adjective

σπορίμων, transforming “sown” into “a sown field.”6

In the second half of this verse, αὐτοῦ serves as a possessive genitive (“his disciples”).7

The phrase ὁδὸν ποιεῖν completes the verb ἤρξαντο (“they began”), translated literally as “to

make a way.”8 Decker suggests a middle translation, like “to make one’s way” or “to journey.”9

Hooker, however, suggests an alternative reading that views the participial phrase τίλλοντες τοὺς

στάχυας as the means by which “the disciples made a path by tearing up the corn.”10 If Decker is

correct though, then τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας functions as a contemporaneous time marker, as in

picking heads of grain as they journeyed along.11

4 Decker, Mark 1-8, 63. 5 Ibid., 24. Though this phenomenon also occurs in 2:24, Mark later uses the singular

form instead, with no apparent significance in meaning associated with the choice of number in

either case (τὸ σάββατον twice in 2:27 and τοῦ σαββάτου once in 2:28). 6 Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries:

Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, 1998), entry no. 4702. 7 Admittedly, this designation seems awkward, as though Jesus “owns” the disciples. Yet

this is the only option that Wallace provides, limiting the Genitive of Relationship use to familial

relationships distinguished by a proper name, not by a pronoun as in Mark 2:23. Daniel B.

Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan and Galaxie Software, 1996), 83. 8 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 598. 9 Decker, 63. 10 Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, Black’s New Testament

Commentary (London: Continuum, 1991), 102. 11 Wallace, 623-5.

3

2:24 Then the Pharisees said to him, “Look! Why are they doing on the Sabbath what is not lawful?”

Following the initial “speaking” verb, ἔλεγον, the interrogative clause ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς

σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν functions as direct discourse.12 This clause records what the Pharisees

said to Jesus. The third person plural subject of ποιοῦσιν (“they are doing”) most likely refers to

the disciples (οἱ μαθηταὶ) in v. 23. Though lacking a preposition, τοῖς σάββασιν (“on the

Sabbath”) again serves as a dative temporal marker, emphasizing the focus of this passage, that

the disciples of Jesus were doing (ποιοῦσιν) something controversial because they were doing it

on a Sabbath day. The prefatory relative pronoun ὃ (“what” or “that which”) forms a relative

clause with οὐκ ἔξεστιν (“it is not lawful”), which serves as the direct object of the main verb

ποιοῦσιν (“they are doing”).13

2:25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he had a need and was hungry, he

and those who were with him?”

The negative adverb οὐδέποτε opens a lengthy direct discourse, spoken by Jesus and

continued to the end of v. 26.14 This word combines δέ, οὐ, and ποῦ.15 It means “never,” as in “an

indefinite negated point of time.”16 The interrogative pronoun τί functions as the direct object of

ἐποίησεν (“he did”), while also opening a clause that continues to the end of v. 25 and which

functions as the direct object of ἐποίησεν; altogether, this clause complements the main verb

12 Decker, 64. 13 Ibid. 14 I am not sure why Decker (p. 64) extends this direct to the end of v. 28. It seems to

extend to the end of v. 26 instead, with a new discourse statement beginning in v. 27 that extends

to the end of v. 28. 15 The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos

Bible Software, 2011). 16 William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of

the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

2000), 735.

4

ἀνέγνωτε (“you read”).17 The accusative noun χρείαν (“need”) functions as the direct object of

ἔσχεν (“he had a need”).

The third and final καὶ in this verse joins αὐτὸς (“he”) and οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (“the ones with

him”) as a compound subject. The definite article, οἱ (“ones”), substantizes the prepositional

phrase μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (“with him”).18 This compound subject is especially fascinating because it

accompanies a singular verb, ἐπείνασεν (“he was hungry”), not a plural one as the reader might

expect. As Wallace explains, “When an author wants to highlight one of the subjects, the verb is

put in the singular. (This even occurs when one of the subjects is in the plural.) The first-named

subject is the one being stressed in such instances.”19 In this case, the “first-named subject”

receiving emphasis would be David, not the men who accompanied him.

2:26 How that he entered into the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the

consecrated bread – which is not lawful to eat, except for the priests – and he also gave some to those who

were with him?”

The interrogative marker πῶς frames this entire verse as an indirect question which

stands in apposition to τί ἐποίησεν … οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ of v. 24.20 The prepositional phrase εἰς τὸν

οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ (“into the house of God”) functions in a locative sense, describing the place

where David entered, whereas the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ (“of God”) functions in a possessive sense,

as in “God’s house,” referring to the tabernacle.21

17 Decker, 64. 18 Ibid. 19 Wallace, 401. 20 Decker, 65. In some of the passages given above in this section πῶς could have the

same mng. as ὅτι that. Arndt, Danker, and Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament, 901. 21 Wallace, 81.

5

The unusual prepositional phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως (“upon Abiathar the high

priest”) presents a special challenge, because few similar constructions appear in the New

Testament (ἐπί + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun). Variant

readings exist that alleviate this difficulty; some remove this phrase entirely, while others add

τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως. Nevertheless, since manuscript support for these alternatives remains thin,

we should probably retain this reading in its more difficult form.22 Decker suggests a temporal

use that alludes to a general time period, like “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” This

works well because the episode to which Jesus refers occurred during the high priesthood of

Ahimelech; meanwhile, Abiathar was alive and would become more well-known (see 1 Sam

21).23 In any case, the noun ἀρχιερέως functions in apposition to Ἀβιαθὰρ (“Abiathar, the high

priest”).24

The accusative noun τοὺς ἄρτους (“the bread”) functions as the direct object of ἔφαγεν

(“he ate”) and is plural because it refers to multiple loaves.25 The full phrase τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς

προθέσεως (“the bread of the presence”) refers to the bread placed by priests on a table in the

Holy Place of the tabernacle (Exo 25:30).26 In this phrase, the genitive τῆς προθέσεως (“of the

22 Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press,

2006), Mk 2:25-26. 23 Decker, 65. The NET editors mention an alternative translation, that this phrase may

allude to an Old Testament Scripture passage, as “in Mark 12:26: ‘Have you not read in the book

of Moses, in the passage about the bush?’ Here the final phrase is simply ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου (ejpi tou

batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger

section of scripture.” The NET Bible, Mk 2:25-26. Meanwhile, BDAG supports Decker’s

proposal with “in the time of Abiathar the high priest.” Arndt, Danker, and Bauer, 367. 24 Brooks offers yet another possible explanation involving a possible case of homeo

arcton (homeoarchy) in which a scribe may have omitted the word abba due to the same letters

and sounds (ab) appears at the beginning of Abiathar. James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New

American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1991), 66. 25 Decker, 65. 26 Ibid.

6

presence”) may function in an attributive sense, describing a special attribute or quality of the

bread. Since the noun derives from the verb προτίθημι (“to set forth, to display publicly”),

though, it seems best to call this an objective genitive, as in “the loaves that are presented.”27

BDAG suggests the “sacred bread,” reflecting the literal translation, “loaves of presentation.”28

The relative pronoun οὓς (“which”) serves as an accusative direct object for the infinitive

φαγεῖν (“to eat”), which completes the main verb ἔξεστιν (“it is lawful”). The words εἰ (“if”) and

μὴ (“not”) together mean “except;” they introduce an elliptical clause that refers to the preceding

clause, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν, meaning “except [it is lawful] for the priests [to eat].”29 The

conjunction καὶ (before ἔδωκεν) resumes (or continues) the narrative, while the subsequent καὶ

(after ἔδωκεν) adds some additional information (sometimes called adjunctive, as in “also”),

namely that he gave bread to the men who accompanied him.30 The participial phrase τοῖς σὺν

αὐτῷ οὖσιν (“the ones who were with him”) functions as a substantive, while the embedded

prepositional phrase σὺν αὐτῷ (“with him”) conveys association.31

2:27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was established because of people, and not people for the

Sabbath;

The nominative subject of ἐγένετο (“it was established”), τὸ σάββατον (“the Sabbath”),

introduces another direct discourse string that continues to the end of v. 28.32 This string

provides Christ’s commentary on the Davidic episode mentioned previously. The repeated

preposition διὰ functions as a causal marker meaning “because of, on account of, for the sake

27 Arndt, Danker, and Bauer, 889. 28 Ibid., 869. 29 Decker, 65. 30 Wallace, 671. 31 Ibid., 382. 32 See footnote 15.

7

of.”33 Furthermore, the repeated noun ὁ ἄνθρωπος (“the men”) functions in a generic or

categorical way, referring to humankind or people in general.34

The verb ἐγένετο (“it was established”), which reappears in this verse, conveys an active,

verbal force, and is not a colloquial time marker as in v. 23. It most likely means “to be

established,” since it refers to the institution of the Sabbath.35 Furthermore, though this verb

appears only once in this verse (in Christ’s statement before the καί), it is implied a second time

in his statement after the καί, with ὁ ἄνθρωπος (“the men”) as the nominative subject.

2:28 so then, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

This concluding statement opens with ὥστε, a word which Decker calls a ‘resultative

conjunction’ (as in “so that” or “with the result that”).36 However, it may be more accurate to

designate this as an inferential conjunction, meaning “therefore.” As Wallace observes, a

resultative conjunction highlights the outcome of an action, while an inferential conjunction

“gives a deduction, conclusion, or summary” of a preceding discussion.37 In this way, what Jesus

says in v. 28 serves as a reasonable, poignant deduction that results from the Davidic episode

(vv. 25-26) and the universal Sabbath proverb (v. 27).

The linking verb ἐστιν (“it is”) has two possible subjects, either κύριός (“Lord”), which

precedes it, or ὁ υἱὸς (“the Son”), which follows. According to Wallace, the articular substantive

serves as the subject in such a case and the anarthrous substantive serves as the predicate

nominative.38 The anarthrous predicate nominative, κύριός, likely carries a qualitative force

33 Wallace, 369. 34 Ibid., 227. Alternately, Decker describes this as representative (p. 66). 35 Arndt, Danker, and Bauer, 197. 36 Decker, 66. 37 Wallace, 673. 38 Ibid., 40-6.

8

rather than an indefinite one.39 In this sense, it presents the Son of Man as “lord” over the

Sabbath rather than as “a lord.” The subject noteworthy ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“the Son of Man”)

appears fourteen times throughout Mark and likely refers back to Daniel 7:13 as a Messianic

title.40 Finally, the conjunction καὶ deserves attention because it functions in an ascensive way,

meaning “Lord even of the Sabbath.”41 It presents what follows as a climactic addition to the

context which precedes it, rising “to a climax like the crescendo in music.”42

Contextual Factors

The Message of Mark

This brief pericope serves Mark’s twofold purpose in a strategic way. His first and

primary purpose is Christological in nature, which Strauss describes as the “confirmation of

Jesus’ Messianic identity.”43 The secondary, residual purpose is discipleship-oriented, which

Strauss describes as “a call to cross-bearing discipleship.”44 This episode in Mark 2:23-28

features both elements of Mark’s overall purpose. The book opens by announcing its

Christological purpose, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1,

NKJV). 45 His disciples eventually affirmed his identity for themselves, just as Peter declared,

“You are the Christ” (8:29). Then, in the wake of this confession, Jesus announced that if any

person desired to follow him, he must “deny himself and take up his cross” (Mark 8:34).

39 Decker, 66-7. 40 Ibid., 52-3. 41 Ibid., 67. 42 T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical

Research (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006), 1181. 43 Mark L. Strauss, Mark, Clinton E. Arnold, ed., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on

the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 41. 44 Strauss, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 42. 45 Unless otherwise noted, all English Bible quotations will come from the New King

James Translation.

9

Regarding the identity of Jesus, this passage concludes by announcing Jesus as the “Son

of Man” and “the Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 28). It also features a historical episode from the royal

Davidic line (v. 25) and the Levitical priesthood (v. 26). By doing this, Mark not only alludes to

Christ’s royal and priestly identity, but he presents him as being a superior representative in both

cases.

Regarding the call to discipleship, this passage portrays Christ’s disciples as journeying

with him through the grain fields, following in his steps (2:23). The remainder of the passage

consists of him advocating for the appropriateness of his disciples’ behavior. It also highlights

the Pharisees’ opposition to the disciples, foreshadowing the kind of antagonism that his

followers would face in the future.

Revealing the Authority of Jesus

In addition to serving Mark’s twofold purpose, this passage fits strategically into the

overall structure of the book, which may be outlined as follows:

I. Introduction: Presenting the Son of Man (1:1-13)

>>> II. Ministry in Galilee: Exposing His Authority (1:14-8:30)

III. Journey to Jerusalem: Revealing His Mission (8:31-10:52)

IV. Ministry in Jerusalem: Enduring His Suffering (11:1-15:47)

V. Conclusion: Announcing His Resurrection (16:1-8 [9-20])

This outline traces the progression of Mark’s message from declaring the person of Jesus to

announcing his resurrection. Between these two announcements, Mark revealed the authority of

Jesus, the mission of Jesus, and his suffering. This progression follows a pathway from the

hinterland inquiries of northern Galilee, to the hostile crowds of Jerusalem, to the decisive

inquisition at the cross of Golgotha.

10

Mark 2:23-28 occurred in an early segment of Christ’s public ministry in Galilee:

II. Ministry in Galilee: Exposing His Authority (1:14-8:30)

F. Questions about his authority (2:1-3:6)

1. Authority over sin (2:1-18)

a. Forgiving sins (2:1-12)

b. Reconciling sinners (2:13-17)

2. Authority over popular religious traditions – like fasting (2:18-22)

3. Authority over Old Testament laws – like the Sabbath (2:23-3:6)

>>> a. Harvesting grain (2:23-28)

b. Healing a disabled man (3:1-6)

Altogether, this segment underscores the special, superior authority of Christ through a series of

miracles and teaching episodes. Within this context, Strauss observes that this episode occurs as

the fourth in a series of five “controversy stories.”46 In each of these episodes, the actions of

Jesus conflicted with respected religious leaders and proved to be superior, which set his

authority in contrast with the authority of these men.47 These episodes appear as follows:

1. Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralyzed Man (2:1-12)

2. Jesus Calls Levi and Eats with Sinners (2:13-17)

3. Jesus Is Questioned about Fasting (2:18-22)

>>> 4. Picking Grain on the Sabbath (2:23-28)

5. Healing on the Sabbath (3:1-6)

In each of these episodes, Jesus (or his disciples) did something good, yet the authorities

criticized him rather than believe on him. This fourth episode (2:23-28) corresponds with the one

that comes before (2:18-22) in that both episodes feature the Pharisees scrutinizing the disciples

of Jesus, hoping to discredit Jesus indirectly.48 Furthermore, this episode corresponds with the

one that follows (3:1-6) because they both address the significance of the Sabbath.49 As Keener

46 Strauss, 142. 47 James Edwards entitles this section “Trouble with Authorities.” The Gospel according

to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 73. 48 Bonnie Bowman Thurston, Preaching Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 33. 49 Strauss, 142.

11

observes, “Jesus’ conflicts with the religious establishment in the preceding passages come to a

head over details of sabbath observance (2:23–3:6).”50

The Sensitive Sabbath Controversy (2:23-24)

Indeed, the significance of the Sabbath features prominently in Mark 2:23-28 and 3:1-6.

By focusing on this theme, Mark magnified the authority of Jesus against the backdrop of a

highly esteemed symbol of Jewish cultural and religion. As Edwards observes: “Most of the

world’s religions venerate sacred places: Islam honors Mecca, Hinduism the Ganges River, and

Shintoism the island of Japan. Judaism also venerated Jerusalem and especially the temple as

sacred space, but it venerated something beyond it, and perhaps above it: time, the Sabbath.”51

This sacred observance originated with the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Sinai and is

the longest, most detailed commandment of the ten (Exo 20:8-11; Deut 5:12-15). What’s more,

the commandment finds significance in the creation of the world (Exo 20:11). These factors and

more make this an especially sensitive subject.

In principle, the Sabbath law forbade the Jewish people from working anytime from

sunset to sunset, Friday to Saturday. To uphold this law, Jewish scribes had cataloged a list of

thirty-nine types of activity which they classified as work; one of these categories was reaping.52

When the Pharisees asked, “Why are they doing on the Sabbath what is not lawful?” they

questioned whether the disciples had violated the fourth commandment by “reaping” as they

picked heads of grain (v. 23).

50 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), Mk 2:23–27. 51 Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, 93. 52 Brooks, Mark, 65.

12

The reader might wonder whether the disciples violated the eighth commandment by

stealing grain from fields which were not their own, yet this was not the case. Old Testament law

permitted passers-by to pick small portions of grain from their neighbor’s fields, so long as they

didn’t harvest their grain on a grander scale (Deut 23:25). Indeed, this was what the disciples

were doing. So rather than criticize them for picking grain, the Pharisees criticized them for

when they were doing so: they were picking grain on the Sabbath. This supposed problem was

significant because Jewish teachers viewed Sabbath violations as the ultimate breach of Israel’s

covenant with God. For a teacher to influence others to do so would threaten Jewish culture.53

Though the Old Testament never classified the disciples’ behavior as “reaping” or

“harvesting,” nor excluded it from Sabbath activities, a subsequent rabbinic ruling (recorded in

the Mishnah Shabbat 7:2) forbade this practice on the Sabbath.54 Therefore, the Pharisees

accused the disciples on the authority of rabbinic legal tradition, not of Old Testament Scripture.

By doing so they honored rabbinic rulings on the same level as Mosaic law, or else they ascribed

greater weight to the rabbinic rulings than to Moses. As a result, this appeal to scribal authority

nullified, rather than empowered, their case against the disciples and distorted the purpose of

genuine Sabbath law. Jesus would use this Pharisaical misstep to reestablish the divine purpose

for the Sabbath and to reassert his personal authority over it.

By addressing Sabbath observance, Jesus contrasted his Messianic mission with the

worn-out institutions and traditions of first-century Judaism, which he portrayed in the previous

episode (2:18-22) as “an old garment” and an “old wineskin.” In contrast, he described his

messianic agenda as “a piece of unshrunk cloth” and “new wine” (2:21-22). Following this

53 Rikk E. Watts, “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 139. 54 Edwards, 94.

https://ref.ly/logosres/comntuseot?ref=Bible.Mk2.23-25&off=292&ctx=ch+they+regard+as+a+~breaking+of+Sabbath%2c

13

episode, he would go on to demonstrate that though Israel’s religious leaders endeavored to

uphold Sabbath law, they did so in a heartless way that undermined it instead and abrogated its

purpose (3:1-6). They had mangled the Sabbath so badly that they prevented people from doing

good.

The Authoritative Response of Jesus (2:25-28)

Jesus shielded his disciples from the criticism of the Pharisees by shifting the focus onto

himself, answering them in a two-tiered way.55 First, he highlighted the Old Testament example

of David (vv. 25-26). By doing so, he departed from his normal practice of appealing to his own

authority; he followed rabbinic practice instead by appealing to Scripture (cf. 1 Sam 21:1-6).56

This tactic demonstrated his respect for and knowledge of Scripture, even more than the respect

and knowledge which the Pharisees and scribes claimed for themselves. It also appealed to

David as a quintessential example, a man who was: (1) chosen by God (1 Sam 16:1), (2)

described by God as a “man after his own heart” (1 Sam 13:14; Acts 13:22), (3) respected as the

greatest, prototypical king in Israel’s history (1 Kin 9:4; 14:8), and, most importantly, (4)

presented as a messianic prototype (2 Sam 7:11-14; Psa 110:1; Jer 23:5). As Edwards observes,

“In making the allusion to David, Jesus is inviting a comparison between his person and Israel’s

royal messianic prototype.”57

By drawing this Davidic connection, Jesus provided an unmistakable example of

someone who loved God’s law. Though the Pharisees claimed that love for God and his law

motivated them to enforce strict, extrabiblical Sabbath regulations, they would agree that their

55 “Teachers were held responsible for the behavior of their disciples, and many rabbis

considered it proper to defend the honor of their disciples.” Keener, The IVP Bible Background

Commentary: New Testament, Mk 2:23-24. 56 Edwards, 94. 57 Ibid., 96.

14

avowed love paled in comparison to David, who famously exclaimed, “Oh, how I love Your law!

It is my meditation all the day” (Psa 119:97). Against this backdrop, in a stroke of brilliance,

Jesus cited an inscripturated instance in which David “violated” ceremonial law due to

mitigating circumstances (Mark 2:25-26; cf., 1 Sam 21:1-6).

The “consecrated bread” consisted of twelve loaves of bread placed on a table in the

tabernacle every Sabbath (Exo 25:30; Lev 24:5-8). This ritual offered a perpetual, visual

reminder of God’s protection and provision and/or represented Israel in the presence of God.58

Furthermore, Mosaic law specified that only members of the priesthood could eat this bread at

the end of the week (Lev 24:9). Yet stunningly, though neither David nor his companions were

priests, they ate this bread on a day when they were famished, without reprimand or

repercussion.

With this scenario, Jesus offered an Old Testament precedent that supported his disciples’

behavior and silenced their detractors.59 Like David and his companions, the disciples were also

hungry (though perhaps not “famished”). Furthermore, they were violating a Sabbath law, but in

a different way. Whereas David and his men violated an actual Mosaic stipulation (Lev 24:9),

Christ’s disciples only violated a rabbinical application. In this way, Christ argued masterfully

from a greater to lesser degree.

He did this in another way as well by contrasting Abiathar, a renowned high priest

serving in the tabernacle, to unrenowned men who were working-class Pharisees serving the

synagogues of Galilee. This comparison follows persuasive and authoritative logic: if the well-

known, Levitical high priest, Abiathar, permitted king David and his soldiers to violate a Mosaic

58 Brooks, 66. 59 Edwards, 96.

15

stipulation due to hunger, then these Pharisees should certainly oblige Jesus and his disciples to

snack on some grains of wheat, an action which only violated extraneous rabbinical stipulations.

Even if Jesus were not the Messiah, this reasoning would still support his disciples’ actions.

Perhaps that is why Mark records no subsequent argumentation or reply from the Pharisees: they

could find no fault with Christ’s defense.

Even so, Jesus expanded and elevated his response to a second tier. Rather than move

from a greater to lesser degree as before, he chose to reason in the opposite direction, moving

from a lesser to greater degree.60 By doing so, he affirmed that he was not somehow inferior to

the Davidic royal line or the Levitical priestly line; indeed, he was superior to them both. He was

superior to the Sabbath law, describing himself as “Lord of the Sabbath” (vv. 27-28). To make

this point, he cited God’s grand, original reason for commanding Sabbath observance, speaking

directly on God’s behalf rather, not in the small-minded, theoretical, and legalistic manner of a

rabbinical commentator (v. 27). Furthermore, he cited his reason for sharing this authoritative

perspective, which was that he, as the Son of Man, stood in authority over the Sabbath (v. 28).

This expanded response affirmed God’s original purpose for instating the Sabbath. Jesus

departed from the protocol of rabbis who relied upon rabbinic rulings passed down from one

generation to the next; he bypassed this approach by appealing to the law’s original intent

instead.61 To do so, he spoke in the form of a proverb (v. 27).62 This proverb made clear that God

did not create people so that they could observe rules and regulations, like the Sabbath; instead,

he introduced the Sabbath to meet the needs of his people. Strauss says, “The Sabbath was to be

60 David E. Garland, A Theology of Mark's Gospel, Biblical Theology of the New

Testament Series, Kindle ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015) 255. 61 Thurston, Preaching Mark, 33. 62 Strauss, 146.

16

a day of renewal, rest for the body, and worship for the soul.”63 So when the disciples plucked

some grain on the Sabbath, Christ upheld God’s intention for the Sabbath by allowing them to

likewise meet their need for physical nourishment.

Unlike God, the Pharisees cared more about enforcing traditional technicalities of

Sabbath observance than meeting the real needs of people. Cooper observes that “instead of

freeing a day for humanity to rest from its labors, the Pharisees made the Sabbath into a day of

burdensome rule-keeping.”64 They would soon reveal this problem more acutely in the next and

final controversy story by criticizing Jesus for healing a man from a physical impairment on the

Sabbath, which episode should have been a cause for celebration (Mark 3:1-6).

More important than the Sabbath itself (as important as it was), Jesus took this occasion

to his identity himself as the Son of Man who stood in authority over the Sabbath. The meaning

of this self-pronouncement and its correspondence to Christ’s prior logic may seem ambiguous at

first. Some propose that he did say this himself, but that Mark wrote later as a commentator. This

proposal seems implausible because only Jesus himself used the title “Son of Man”; no one else

in the Gospels ascribed this title to him.65 Others propose that Jesus carried forward the mankind

reference from v. 27, as in, “Even so is mankind lord of the Sabbath.” This proposal also falls

short because it contradicts the point that Christ was making.66 The best explanation seems to be

that Christ continued the mankind theme of v. 27, but he did so by claiming to be the ultimate

representative of humankind, the “Son of Man” who alone exercises authority over the Sabbath.

63 Ibid. 64 Rodney L. Cooper, Mark, vol. 2, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville:

Broadman & Holman, 2000), 36. 65 Edwards, 97. 66 “Most unlikely is the view that “Son of Man” here means man and that Jesus taught

that human beings have authority to determine how the Sabbath is to be observed. That is the

very thing he was protesting against!” Brooks, 67.

17

Some Old Testament allusions in this claim to authority over the Sabbath are rich with

significance. First, for Jesus to claim authority over the Sabbath was to claim authority over an

institution which God had established, whether in the Mosaic law (Exo 20:8-11), in Creation

(Gen 2:3), or both. So to claim preeminence over the Sabbath was a massive claim indeed,

placing “himself squarely in the place of God.”67 What’s more, the self-professed title Son of

Man was a claim to be the “consummate human being who came to inaugurate a new age of

salvation and establish the kingdom of God (cf. Dan 7:13–14).”68 This supreme authority and

sovereign position authorized him to rule over all people and all things, not just the Sabbath. Bolt

observes, “As the Son of Man he is Lord of the sabbath; that is, he is the one who will preside

over that great sabbath rest at the end of time, entered through the resurrection from the dead.69”

Contemporary Significance

As fascinating as this episode in Mark may be from a historical and theological

standpoint, how should it affect the mindset and life of people living two-thousand years later

today? For nonbelievers, this passage offers a Christological hope that transcends religious

observances. Like the Pharisees, many people dutifully adhere to a litany of religious rituals and

traditions, hoping their disciplined, fastidious lifestyle will lead them to God. In contrast, this

episode reveals a superior and refreshing alternative. It introduces a divine person who

transcends religious observances. He is the “Son of Man” who alone possesses the divine

authority and ability necessary to lead you away from the bondage of petty religion to a sure and

lasting relationship with God.

67 Edwards, 97. 68 Strauss, 146. 69 Peter G. Bolt, The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark's Gospel, New Studies

in Biblical Theology, Kindle ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016), 26-7.

18

For believers, this episode provides important perspectives on how loyalty to Christ

should shape the way they respond both to the Old Testament law and narrative and to one

another. First, a believer today must recognize that Jesus did not disparage the Law, nor did he

denounce the Pharisees’ attempt to apply the Law rigorously. Instead, he pointed out that in their

attempt to apply the Law, they had overlooked other scriptural considerations, such as the

example of David eating the sacred loaves of bread from the tabernacle. This should inspire

believers to study the Bible more thoroughly and attentively.

Believers should also consider whether they observe biblical commands in a legalistic,

rote manner, or whether they give more acute attention to the divine intentions which motivate

those commands. When commands appear to contradict one another, the follower of Christ may

seem to have a problem. Such is not the case, however, for the believer should learn to resolve

this apparent quandary by embracing the underlying motive that governs those commands, such

as meeting a pressing, genuine human need and thereby glorifying the goodness of God.70

Like the Gentile believers in churches who first received Mark’s Gospel, believers today

should understand that the Old Covenant requirement of Sabbath observance ended when Christ,

the Son of Man, finished his suffering work on the cross (Col 2:14). That is why Paul said, “Let

no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which

are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col 2:16-17). When Judaism

advocates pressured believers to observe Jewish holidays, Paul said this to the churches, “You

observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you

in vain” (Gal 4:10).

70 Donald English, The Message of Mark: The Mystery of Faith, The Bible Speaks Today

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 74.

https://ref.ly/logosres/bstus62mk?ref=Bible.Mk2.23-28&off=1867&ctx=ing+on+the+Sabbath.+~Jesus+challenges+his

19

This New Testament teaching about the Sabbath stimulated lively debate in the early

Christian community. From a discipleship standpoint, a passage like Mark 2:23-28 would have

complemented the Pauline passages cited previously, providing additional assurance that as they

followed Jesus as Lord, they were not obligated to observe the Jewish sabbath. 71 This pericope

would also provide Jewish believers with the assurance that though they may observe the

Sabbath out of cultural and scriptural sensitivity, their observance should not encumber their

ability to prioritize human need. It should also remind them to find their ultimate identity neither

in circumcision nor the Sabbath, but in the Lord who is greater than all these things.72 In this

way, this episode fosters Christian unity and charity within the church, especially between

Jewish and non-Jewish believers.

While recognizing that God does not command believers today to observe Sabbath law,

believers should continue to recognize the universal principle that motivated this Mosaic

requirement. Once again, Strauss articulates this principle by saying, “The Sabbath was to be a

day of renewal, rest for the body, and worship for the soul.”73 Throughout Mark 2:23-28, Jesus

never disparaged the Sabbath. Though Mosaic requirements have ceased, these basic human

needs remain. As such, believers should find ways to meet these needs, both for themselves and

for others.74 To be sure, a person meets these needs in the ultimate sense by believing on Jesus,

the Son of Man, as his supreme rest now and as the one who will guide him into perfect,

everlasting rest in the future, eternal kingdom that he will establish (Dan 7:13-14; Matt 11:28-30;

Heb 4:9-10).75

71 Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 101-2. 72 Ibid., 101. 73 Ibid. 74 Strauss, 150. 75 Edwards, 97.

https://ref.ly/logosres/black62mk?ref=Bible.Mk2.23-28&off=1039&ctx=one+on+the+sabbath.+~The+question+of+sabb

20

As believers learn to practice the grace of renewal, rest, and worship, they should do so

from a foundation of a responsible, thorough, and comprehensive study of Scripture, just as Jesus

demonstrated by his reference to 1 Samuel 21. While the Christian life is not a matter of religious

adherence to Old Testament laws, it is not a matter of ignoring them either. Indeed, “All

Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,

for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). By exploring both the teaching ministry of Jesus

in the Gospels and his continued teaching the Epistles, believers today are equipped to

understand and apply God’s underlying motives for giving Old Testament laws without being

encumbered by tedious, legalistic compliance.

As believers take this approach to following Jesus as Lord, they should recognize the

difference between a divine principle (i.e., “the Sabbath was established because of people, and

not people for the Sabbath”) and a practical application of that principle (i.e., “don’t pick grain

on the Sabbath”).76 The way that one believer applies a principle may differ from another due to

many legitimate factors. In such cases, one believer should respect the application of another, so

long as the application reflects the clear intention of Scripture. At the same time, each believer

should recognize that such differences will not always be the result of determining what is best in

a universal sense, but they will instead be the result of determining what is most appropriate in a

certain context.

Furthermore, believers should beware of the ingrained human tendency to revere

applications on the same level as direct requirements of God, imbuing them with the same

weight and authority as explicit Scripture. Like first-century Pharisees, believers today may

76 English, The Message of Mark: The Mystery of Faith, 76.

21

easily contort and compress Christianity into a set of patented laws and traditions.77 This

unfortunate approach fails to embrace what Mark 2:27-28 teaches, namely “that the righteous

purpose of God as manifested in the Torah can be recovered and fulfilled only in relation to

Jesus, who is its Lord.”78 When believers lose sight of this crucial reality, giving way to legalistic

tendencies instead, they lost sight of the power, authority, grace, and majesty of Jesus.

Expositional Outline

Introduction

How should you respond to the Old Testament law today? What’s more, how should you

respond to historical Old Testament stories? An episode in the ministry of Jesus helps to answer

these questions.

I. The freedom of following Jesus (2:23)

As this scene opens, we find Jesus traveling by foot through some grain fields, with his

disciples following close behind. As they walked along, the disciples reached out to pick

occasional heads of wheat as nourishment along the way. This scene portrays a carefree journey

as this group of men makes their way through the rural countryside of Galilee.

At first you might wonder whether they were violating the eighth of the Ten

Commandments, “You shall not steal” (Exo 20:15). After all, they were eating grain from

another person’s field without asking permission. Even so, the Law permitted such behavior for

hungry passers-by, so long as they didn’t harvest their neighbor’s fields beyond the scope of their

immediate personal need (Deut 23:25). In a simple way, this scene portrays the freedom in life

77 Thurston, Preaching Mark, 34-5. 78 Edwards, 97.

22

that followers of Jesus enjoy, moving from one place to the next, enjoying God’s gracious

provision to meet their every need.

II. The criticism of those who don’t know Jesus (2:24)

The disciples and Jesus were not alone. Some Pharisees who had been observing them

stepped forward to ask Jesus a question. “Look! Why are they doing on the Sabbath what is not

lawful?” Though this question is about the disciples’ behavior, the Pharisees asked Jesus instead

because they viewed him as the one who was responsible for his followers’ actions.

By asking this question, they were subtly accusing Jesus of permitting or encouraging his

followers to violate not the eighth commandment (“don’t steal”), but the fourth (“honor the

Sabbath day,”). The Sabbath command was the largest, most detailed of the Ten Commandments

(Exo 20:8-11). It also occupied a prominent place in Jewish life, setting Israel apart from other

nations in a unique way by requiring them to set aside the seventh day of every week for rest and

worship, and no work.

To violate the Sabbath or to encourage others to do so would be tantamount to burning

the American flag in the United States today. So it was a serious and sensitive matter for the

Pharisees to accuse Christ’s disciples of disrespecting the Sabbath. Yet how did they suggest that

the disciples had done so?

Over time, rabbis had compiled a list of 39 categories of work. Scribes and Pharisees

insisted that Jewish people refrain from all these activities on the Sabbath. This list was not a

biblical list per se; it was a logical list instead. Even so, the Jewish people revered this rabbinic

tradition so highly that they mistook this extrabiblical list for the biblical Sabbath command

itself.

23

When the Pharisees accused Christ’s disciples of violating Mosaic law, they were

charging them with violating rabbinical applications of the Sabbath principle (“don’t work”)

rather than violating anything which God himself had explicitly commanded. What’s more, by

pressing for logical and technical applications of this law, the Pharisees had inadvertently

abandoned and contradicted God’s original purpose for giving it.

III. The precedent of David (2:25-26)

Jesus answered the Pharisees’ question the way that a responsible rabbi would do. With a

question of his own, he appealed to the Old Testament for a precedent that would support his

disciples’ behavior (1 Sam 21:1-6). By doing so, he bypassed more recent rabbinical

commentary and applications. In fact, he appealed King David.

David was an especially persuasive example because he was(1) chosen by God (1 Sam

16:1), (2) described by God as a “man after his own heart” (1 Sam 13:14), (3) exemplary in his

love for God’s law (Psa 119:97), (4) respected as the greatest king in Israel’s history (1 Kin 9:4),

and most importantly (5) presented as a messianic prototype (2 Sam 7:11-14).

By referring to David, Jesus accomplished two results. First, he successfully defended his

disciples’ behavior (2:25-26). Second, he revealed his identity as God’s Messiah (2:27-28).

To defend his disciples’ behavior, Christ used the episode from David’s life as an argument from

greater to lesser degree. From the vantage point of the Pharisees, King David would be greater

than Jesus, Abiathar the high priest would be greater than the Pharisees, and David’s fellow

soldiers would be greater than Christ’s disciples. So, if David did something similar, if Abiathar

permitted him to do so, and if David’s men followed suit, then certainly it would be no infraction

if the disciples’ of Jesus mirrored this behavior to a lesser degree.

24

In David’s case, he received permission from the high priest to eat the sacred bread in the

Holy Place of the tabernacle. This “consecrated bread” consisted of twelve loaves placed on a

table in the tabernacle every Sabbath (Exo 25:30; Lev 24:5-8). Mosaic law specified that only

members of the priesthood could eat this bread at the end of the week (Lev 24:9).

Though neither David nor his companions qualified, they received permission to eat this

bread anyway, not because David was important, but because he was hungry. As such, this

example fits the greater-to-lesser paradigm in an important way: David’s actions violated

ceremonial stipulations in Scripture, whereas the disciples’ actions only violated later rabbinical

tradition.

IV. The preeminence of Jesus (2:27-28)

Christ’s initial answer to the Pharisees stands alone as a decisive defense (2:25-26).

Perhaps that is why the Pharisees offered no rebuttal. Even so, Mark recorded an additional

response from Jesus that expanded his answer. This stage of reply reasoned in the opposite

direction from the first, moving from a lesser to greater degree. In this case, Christ did more than

defend his disciples’ actions; he revealed his true, personal identity as someone who was more

significant than a skilled or popular rabbi. He revealed himself as the Son of Man.

In v. 27, Christ broadened the scope of the discussion to a universal scale. Instead of

talking about an isolated case study (such as David, his soldiers, and Abiathar), he referred to all

mankind. Instead of referring to a technical, subsequent application of Sabbath law, he referred

to the original intent of the law itself.

Furthermore, Christ elevated the discussion by referring not only to the original

institution of the Sabbath (whether to Exo. 20:8-11 as a codified law or to Gen 2:3 as a general

principle). He also referred to the divine creation of people. By giving an authoritative opinion of

25

this magnitude, he presented himself as an authority over Sabbath law, not merely an interpreter

of it, and he presented himself an authority over humankind.

Christ’s spoke in v. 27 in the form of a proverb that affirmed God’s original purpose for

instating the Sabbath. With this approach, he departed from the protocol of rabbis who relied

upon rabbinic rulings passed down from one generation to the next. This proverb affirmed that

God did not create people so that they could observe rules fastidiously, like the Sabbath. Instead,

he intended for the Sabbath to meet the needs of his people.

As one commentator explains, “The Sabbath was to be a day of renewal, rest for the

body, and worship for the soul.”79 So when the disciples plucked and ate some grain on the

Sabbath (and when David and his men at the “consecrated bread” in the tabernacle), they

fulfilled this original intent by meeting their need for nourishment.

On what basis did Jesus provide this authoritative opinion? According to v. 28, he did so

on the basis of his identity as the divine Messiah, the ultimate and divine human being who not

only created mankind and instituted the Sabbath, but would also fulfill the law perfectly, suffer

for mankind’s failure to do so, rule over all people forever, and inaugurate an everlasting

kingdom marked by a true and perpetual Sabbath rest (Dan 7:13-14).

Conclusion

When you read about an Old Testament law like the Sabbath or when you read a

historical Old Testament story, like when David and his men ate the “consecrated bread,” you

need to step back from a rigid, legalistic approach. Instead, you need to ask four questions.

First, what does this law or story cause me to think about Christ? If you fixate on behavioral

implications alone, then you will miss the Christological purpose (Gal 3:24; Luke 24:25-27). The

79 Strauss, 146.

26

Pharisees were more concerned about minute applications of Old Testament laws than they were

about seeking a personal relationship with Christ. In their attempts to uphold the Law, they

abandoned the Law giver.

Second, what is God’s purpose for giving this law or story? Once again, if you fixate on

the immediate law or story in isolation from other Scripture, then you will likely develop a

limited and distorted perspective. God doesn’t reveal everything in one passage all at once, so we

need to look carefully at Scripture as a whole, comparing Scripture with Scripture – just as Jesus

did.

Third, what are reasonable and appropriate ways to apply God’s purpose in your life

today? Though Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament law and though the Mosaic law does not

govern us in a legal sense, the entire Old Testament remains a relevant and authoritative resource

for discipleship (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:16-17). For instance, though you have no

obligation to practice the Sabbath as a law, you should submit to the Lord of the Sabbath by

finding your ultimate rest in him and by finding appropriate ways to practice the principle of

personal renewal, physical rest, and the worship of God.

Fourth, what is your attitude towards others who apply biblical principles in ways that

differ from you? For instance, the Pharisees applied the Sabbath law by refusing to pluck grain

on the Sabbath. The disciples chose to pluck grain to meet their need for nourishment instead.

The Pharisees were not wrong for taking a careful approach. Instead, they were wrong for

insisting that everyone else take the same approach, even when they encountered a contradictory

human need. According to Romans 14:5-13, you should respect the choice of other believers to

apply biblical principles in a variety of ways, even when their applications differ from yours.

27

How is this possible? By every believer submitting himself to the ultimate authority of Jesus

Christ (Rom 14:11-12; cf. Mark 2:28).

28

SOURCES CONSULTED

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

2000.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press, 2006.

Bolt, Peter G. The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark's Gospel. New Studies in Biblical

Theology. Kindle ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016.

Bowman, Bonnie Thurston. Preaching Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.

Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. UBS

Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Brooks, James A. Mark. Vol. 23. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman &

Holman, 1991.

Cooper, Rodney L. Mark. Vol. 2. Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Broadman &

Holman, 2000.

Decker, Rodney J. Mark 1-8: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek

New Testament. Kindle ed. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014.

Edwards, James. The Gospel according to Mark. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

English, Donald. The Message of Mark: The Mystery of Faith. The Bible Speaks Today.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

Garland, David E. A Theology of Mark's Gospel. Biblical Theology of the New Testament

Series. Kindle ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.

Green, Joel B. The Way of the Cross: Following Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Eugene, OR: Wipf

& Stock, 2009.

Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Black’s New Testament Commentary.

London: Continuum, 1991.

Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker,

2011.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity, 1993.

McFadyen, Phillip. Open Door on Mark: His Gospel Explored. London: Triangle, 1997.

Robertson, T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006.

29

Strauss, Mark L., Mark. Clinton E. Arnold, ed. Arnold. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on

the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible

Software, 2011.

Thomas, Robert L. New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries: Updated

Edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, 1998.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan and Galaxie Software, 1996.

Watts, Rikk E. “Mark.” Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.