The Gospel of Mark really does move fast in terms of plot. This whole interaction is building the tension of the conflict between the righteous Lord Jesus and the cultic Pharisees and other associated elements of the so-called leadership in Israel. From their perspective, this “interloper,” calling Himself by names that should be sacred, was attempting to make a name for Himself. In reality, Jesus had entered time and space to redeem humanity and intended to give up His own life as a sacrifice from the very beginning. His provocation of said leadership is proof of prior planning, if nothing else, not to mention the Love He has for us as His creations.

The Lord of all the Earth knew ahead of time that there would be people who would, at least from time to time, need to feed themselves with no money, and therefore made provision for them. The paths that crossed planted fields were natural for the day, and the group of men were probably travelling somewhere by the time-honoured method of foot travel. Here is where we will jump into the study text.

I broke the chapter down as follows:

KV28: Lord of the Sabbath, Part I

28: “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

23-24: The Challenge to Jesus’ Authority

25-26: The Response from Scripture

27-28: “I am the Messiah.”

God’s provision was recorded in Scripture for anyone to look up and read. Deuteronomy 23:25 covers what was going on, and probably had been for a very long time. “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.” What the disciples were doing was legal and not considered theft; nor was such the charge the Pharisees made. Mark gives the details of how they picked the grain by hand, and Luke adds the detail of how they rubbed the heads of the grain (likely wheat or barley) in their hands. This was how you made a snack on the go. Let’s get into the text.

KV28: Lord of the Sabbath, Part I

28: “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

This conflict between our Lord and the Pharisees shows a number of things that we will outline in our study this evening, and to make my work a little less of an effort, I will hit those points as we go through the text. The major thing that comes out of this is that try as they might, the Pharisees are losing the battle of the debates with Jesus. As smart as they were, He knew everything, and it’s hard to debate a guy who knows more than you. However, the main point of the life of Jesus was for a different point than waking people up to the hypocrisy of the leaders of the nation.

The main point Jesus had here was to provoke a response from the national religious leadership to get them to turn Him over to the Roman authorities for execution. The responses Jesus is making seem deliberately designed to provoke a showdown that is building. At this point, this conflict is in its infancy. They are poking and prodding to find the weak spot that will give them the response they are looking for so that they can invalidate what He is saying publicly by discrediting Him. It was a game they were very good at and had perfected the technique over time. However, it is impossible to invalidate or even mute the God who created everything, ultimately, and this will ultimately come out in Jesus’ death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the death He suffered there. Let’s look at the actual text.

23-24: The Challenge to Jesus’ Authority

On this particular day, Jesus and his disciples were simply walking somewhere through some fields of planted grain. Feeling the need for a bit of a snack, His disciples picked a few heads of the grain, rubbed them rapidly between their hands, and ate the result for a little energy while they walked to their destination. None of this was illegal or unacceptable; in fact, it wasn’t even the charge levelled at them. It was that they did this on the Sabbath, the holy day of rest where the Pharisees mistakenly believed one could perform no work. Let’s get into the text.

23: 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 grainfields referred to here were likely grain or barley. Some older translations use the word “corn” but this is referring in older language to the heads of the grains, not maize or Indian corn. As we said before, Luke adds the detail of what they were doing, Luke 6:1 “Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.” The action of rubbing the heads of grain in their hands was to shell the grain for consumption, which they were clearly doing as they went along.

The problem arose here because they were doing this on the Sabbath, the holy day set aside for ceasing one’s own works so that God’s holiness, providence, and saving rest may be honoured. Although the Pharisees would not have recognized this, the writer of Hebrews explains that it means ceasing from doing one’s own works; Hebrews 4:10 says, “For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.” Jesus shows on this and other occasions that the Sabbath was for human benefit, but more on that later. Now with the stage set, we will move to the next verse.

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

And of course, almost on cue, as if it were expected, the Pharisees had a problem with it. Not so much that they were walking somewhere that could not be avoided. Note that they were following Jesus to keep an eye on Him. It was the picking of the grain to make a quick snack that was the issue. We have to establish that, because what they said next was incorrect, and given that they were supposed to be the teachers of Israel along with the Scribes, I think they knew it was incorrect, making this a deliberate attempt to intimidate and stop Jesus and His men. See what they said.

“It is not lawful to do what you are doing on the Sabbath.” Some will say that the Pharisees misinterpret the actions of the disciples. They were clearly doing the picking of the heads of grain as they went along. The Pharisees did not misinterpret; they deliberately miscategorized the actions of the disciples as harvesting the grain. Now, I suppose it could have been a simple mislabeling, but I doubt it, because everybody grew up in farm country. Even city kids. They knew in intimate detail where their grain for bread came from, and every step of how to make the bread. Likewise, their veggies and meats. Also, the Scriptures themselves make a difference. Deuteronomy 16:9 actually describes “harvesting for us: “You shall count seven weeks for yourself; you shall begin to count seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain.” We can look at 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.” It describes the very activity that the disciples were doing. The Pharisees, as “masters” of the Law sure weren’t doing a good job if this was an accidental mischaracterization. I think they knew, and they were basically throwing the proverbial mud at the proverbial wall to see what would stick, and if they could get a reaction, they could run with it. In my news headline sorting, I see this technique used repeatedly by numerous people on all sides. They do it because it works, and it works because nobody likes to be accused of wrongdoing. That’s my firm opinion of what I am viewing here.

The Pharisees were not wrong about what the Law said; they made a false equivalence, hoping to slip one by the stupid fishermen in their thinking. It’s too bad for them that 1) they weren’t “stupid” and 2) the God of the Universe had taken on flesh, and He who knew everything from the start was actually there. You remember Him! He WROTE the law that He gave to Moses. He knew what it said because He originated it. But that’s what we will see in the next paragraph.

What we can know from this accusation is that it was not only deliberate on the part of these “masters of the Law” but also expected by the Lord, and I argue that, in His foreknowledge of events that He somehow supernaturally planned and engineered the event as part of the entire chain of events that led to the redemption of all those who would turn to Himself. I know that’s kind of meta, but it’s the main storyline of Scripture beginning in Gen. 3:15 (the protoevangelium) and all the way through Scripture. Moving on to the next paragraph.

25-26: The Response from Scripture

Such a miscategorization by theological experts of the God whom they were refusing to acknowledge in His rightful office really demands a response from said God, sooner or later. Here, they got a merciful response with the motive of trying to patiently correct their doctrine with a proper application of Scripture. You didn’t think Jesus was just going to let this go, did you? If you did, I make no apology for the shepherdly way Christ deals with these straying individuals from His people, even if they were too far gone to return to Him. Let’s look.

25: And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need, and he and his companions became hungry;

Just like Jesus did with Satan. He responded to them with what Scripture says, in context, correctly interpreted, with all the patience demanded of a true shepherd. (See 2 Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.”) Jesus didn’t just “know the Law” in the sense that the Pharisees did. He knew what He meant when He wrote it the first time and could correctly give the meaning and handle it accurately (2 Timothy 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”).

Okay, I hear that question: Jesus knew these guys were bad guys. Why would he respond with this kind of patience and kindness, in mercy, with correct doctrine in love? I think it is the same reason we breathe air. We have to; it is in our nature to breathe air. It is in His nature to love us and mercifully try to bring us around to Himself with patience and kindness and correct theology. That does not relieve us of choice or responsibility, but it is a great start, because we are rebels. Deuteronomy 32:15, speaking of His chosen people Israel, said, “But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked— You are grown fat, thick, and sleek— Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation.” He is still the God who would sell His people into slavery and captivity to a “foolish nation” because of their rebellious disobedience, but He still in mercy and by the grace nobody deserves or can earn, brought them back out of captivity to be their shepherd again. And if you understand that Jesus came the first time as the Great Shepherd, just know that is who He is. Micah 5:4 tells us, “And He will arise and shepherd His flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His God. And they will remain, because at that time He will be great to the ends of the earth.” That’s an Old Testament Reference. Look for a second with me at Hebrews 13:20: “Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord…” That specifically tells us who Jesus is. And that Great Shepherd will be great to the ends of the Earth—and Beyond. Next verse.

26: 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?”

The passage Jesus takes them back to from Scripture is 1 Samuel 21:4–6: “The priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” David answered the priest and said to him, “Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out, and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?” So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the Lord, to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.” Every Sabbath, 12 loaves of consecrated bread were baked and set on the table of gold in the Holy Place in the Temple. After the fresh loaves replaced the loaves from the previous week, the priests were allowed to eat the old bread. Recognizing their need, Ahimelech the High Priest had compassion on David and gave him and the young men with him that consecrated bread so they would have the energy to go on. The only condition was that the young men be ceremonially clean, not having been with women. Notably, God did NOT punish Ahimelech OR David for these actions. As before, Jesus’ point was about showing compassion. Compassion always trumps strict obedience to inflexible and minor rules at the expense of people (no, you still cannot murder them or steal their stuff). If it were possible for the High Priest Ahimelech to make an exception to God’s ceremonial law to render compassionate aid to David and his men, it was infinitely more appropriate for God the Son to disregard the unbiblical rabbinical traditions of the elders to meet the needs of the disciples. That’s the classical understanding of the argument.

Matthew makes another argument as well, and it is one I have begun to understand. Matthew 12:5–6 says, “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.” I used to struggle with this one. After many years of not really understanding the big deal, I am able now to call myself what is known as a Sabbatarian, that is, one who acknowledges that there is a day of sabbath rest where we are to enter into God’s rest. It is also my opinion that the Christian observance of that day is Sunday, though unlike some, I will not call it “the Christian Sabbath” for a few reasons we will not discuss here. Suffice it to say that the Christian should be entering into God’s rest of salvation every day. Corporately, the day we should observe for that rest is the one on which our Lord arose from the grave, having conquered death for the rest of eternity. I used to have to work on Sundays as the manager of Kinney Shoes at Westgate Shopping Centre, now closed (the shopping centre too). It was written into my contract. I could have stood my ground, but I was told that if I did, I didn’t have to continue to work for Kinney’s either. I ran afoul of church leadership because of that contract, but I did have to pay rent and such, as I was told over and over. I fell into some depression, and being a typical man, didn’t really know what to do with it. Ultimately, I found a different job, and for a while, it was great, and then I got switched to midnights and was not physically able to stay awake in church. Again, I found another job, and guess what, they wanted me to work Sundays, but this time I saw it coming, and I said no and had reasons to say no. It will always BE an issue. So I found a way to make it a non-issue. I became a Pastor. I work on Sundays. And it is supposed to be that way. We will likely revisit this when we look at the Gospel of Matthew. I know that won’t work for everyone. But at some point, you will have to stand your ground. If you will be faithful, then you are displaying the patience and faith of the saints. If you don’t think you can, I understand, and I am praying for you because I have been there.

In this paragraph, we have revisited the same principle we saw when our Lord called Levi. It is mercy and compassion that the Lord desires, not adherence to stupid and inflexible non-biblical rules. It is the obedience of His people that is desired, not just the brainless and futile killing of innocent livestock. In both David, the servant of the Lord’s eating of the showbread, and in the disciples gleaning a few grains of wheat or barley as a snack, we see the compassion of God in the actions of the priests (Ahimilech and Jesus) in both cases, ignoring inflexible and unbiblical rules for the benefit of humanity. That has a narrow context, admittedly, but if we are in that context, we are okay. And if we allow God to set our definitions to provide the correct context, we cannot go wrong. Next paragraph, our final one of the evening.

27-28: “I am the Messiah.”

For people who say that Jesus never claimed to be God (though I admit I haven’t met any of them since the late 1980s), this is going to be a very disturbing collection fo thoughts. Such individuals are doubtless still around, probably because they never heard anything by Josh McDowell, author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict 1 & 2, More than a Carpenter, Answers to Skeptics, More Answers to Skeptics, and other books. He says it here again, in this text. It isn’t the obtuseness of the Pharisees that is causing them to ignore it, in my opinion. I think it would have been too much for them to allow the possibility that it could have been true. They are ignoring it for the moment, but Jesus’ repeated statements do not go unnoticed or unreported to the high priest, which we will see later. If you have been with us for the past 10 weeks, you already know that He has said it, and not only said it in words; He has demonstrated it in power. To ignore the historical record is to become a historical agnostic, not knowing if anything is ever real.

In university, I had a sociology/anthropology professor by the name of Derek Smith. I really liked him; he was a very smart man, and you could just tell he liked people, especially his students. He’s the guy who tried to talk me into applying for a medical exemption for my Law exam when I was walking to it on crutches from a soccer injury the day before. He was really concerned, and I took his words as compassionate. I knew my material, and I wanted to go and ace the thing, so I did. But it was Derek that I felt the worst for. He taught the idea of systematic doubt as an ideal to adhere to. I cannot agree with the idea, because even if you arrive at the actual truth, according to systematic doubt, you have to doubt that all over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I prefer the idea of pursuing truth and using something called the Socratic Method, which is the use of questions, as employed by Socrates, to develop a latent idea, as in the mind of a pupil, or to elicit admissions, as from an opponent, tending to establish a proposition. You can use it to either confirm an idea to an endpoint or reject something as false or irrelevant by simply asking questions. I usually start with “Why?” That’s not the only one. Perhaps you’ve heard them in a different form, but they are Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. People today don’t seem to be asking these enough, but I digress. This isn’t a course in Journalism; it’s an expedition to the ultimate truth. On with the show and into the text.

27: Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

This isn’t where Jesus says He is God. This is the verbal answer of Jesus to the Pharisees after the expositional answer from Scripture about why exceptions sometimes need to be made. Jesus here is making the statement as a conclusion of His biblical argument that the Sabbath was made for man, as in it is to be to humanity’s benefit; man was not made to serve the Sabbath or ideals concerning the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day every week. What, for example, would one do on that day if one were in a coma? Is such a one in violation of the Sabbath? What if he wakes up and eats, as the disciples did in their hunger? I think the differences are clear, but let’s review that idea.

A comatose individual, under the law, is doing no work because breathing is a natural activity, and that holds even if the breathing is being done for you by another means, because YOU are not doing the work on the Sabbath. What if it is somebody doing CPR? Well, I’m stating the argument from a point of view I do not subscribe to, so please be merciful if I don’t properly present it. The Pharisees would say you have violated the Law by doing work on the Sabbath. I say you have shown compassion for the individual by trying to preserve their life, so that is a recorded and allowable exception to the Law, because you are trying to do good.

If you were comatose and awoke on the sabbath, you are fine. No work was done; it was a natural progression or change in your condition. If you were given a miracle drug to wake you out of the coma, the Pharisees would say the one who gave you the drug has violated the Law by working on the Sabbath. Again, I see this as a recorded and allowable exception because of your compassionate action to improve the situation of the comatose individual.

I know this all seems a bit odd to be talking about this, and I agree, but the fact is, I have heard rabbis arguing over things like this. A farmer had been critically injured somehow; I don’t recall all the details, but the medics were said to be violating the Sabbath because they did their job on the injured man. From what Jesus told us here, that’s nonsense. Is it compassionate to leave an injured man at the mercy of the elements and in pain because it’s a Saturday? As I have heard it said, that does not relate to the price of tea in China. You are allowed to do good and save a life, possibly preserving such an individual for exposure to the gospel and the salvation of their soul later.

On the other hand, is it not okay to take a day off? I’ve had employers who wanted every last ounce of time they could compel out of me. Although I never worked there, I did hear the saying in the early 1990s coming from what we now know as the Disney Empire: If you won’t come into work on Saturday, don’t bother coming in on Sunday. Their point was if you weren’t willing to work any day of the week, then they didn’t want you on any day of the week. Our Creator very wisely built in a day off for His creation. Not that He needed to, but He Himself rested from His works on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2, “By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.”). It becomes clear under a detailed consideration of these things, which I have only begun here and will leave you to complete at your own leisure, that it is okay to have a day off. At least once per week, the seven-day cycle we go through on our calendars. And if on your God-given day off, you need to pick up your dog and carry it to the car because it fell and injured its paw, that’s okay too. Why? Because the day was made for us, not we were made for the day. And there is more, and this is the bit I was talking about.

28: “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

What? What has been said? And by Whom? It is Jesus speaking, and has been since He cut the Pharisees off at the end of verse 24. Let’s get into the verse.

The Son of Man? Who is that? And He’s Lord of the Sabbath? What does that even mean? I’m sure the Pharisees were melting down mentally at this point. Let’s handle it in order in small bits. This is often a good way to handle things that seem to be immense on their face. The first use of “Son of Man” in Scripture seems to be in Psalm 8:4: “What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?” (I argue that it may be in Job 35:8, but I am uncertain because the context is difficult in Job.) It applies to several individuals at different times. For example, it is a name God uses for the prophet Ezekiel. However, Daniel 7:13 contains a Messianic reference: “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.” An angel in that same book calls Daniel himself by the same name. In the Gospels, it was one of Jesus’ favourite titles for Himself, used in all four gospels over 80 times, and in at least one verse twice in the same context. The “Son of Man” is a title here being applied to some kind of administrative (at least) ruler over the Sabbath, and it can only really be referring to Himself. If we connect that in a straight line from Daniel 7, He is claiming (over 80 times in the 4 gospels) to be the Messiah. More, He is claiming to be the Messiah who will cause an individual to enter into God’s rest; that is salvation and relief from being under sin and the wrath of God. Matthew 11:28–30: “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.” He is the Messiah, the Anointed One of God, the Christos come into the world to save it from His own wrath.

That Lord is over the Sabbath, the rest of God, salvation. This, for a careful reader, is a nod to the sovereignty of God, particularly to Sovereign Election. God is the one who not only makes the initial choice, but He is the one who does all of the work in Regeneration. Ephesians 2:8–9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” More than that, He is sovereign over the whole process. Romans 8:28–30 “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Now, I know, people will be accusing me of Calvinism here. What of it? It says that. And for you Arminians in the crowd, I’m at peace with you being there, though I disagree with you. I once heard someone confront a fairly well-known Pastor from a fairly well-known ministry about his Arminianism when presenting this verse. I heard the sputter from the gent, and then he said something like “Yeah, but remember, that predestination is into Christ’s image,” like that settled the matter in his favour. Beloved, it doesn’t. That was God’s plan from the beginning: To have a bunch of some kind of administrative servants in the image of His Son. This is how He accomplished all of that, and the fact–I repeat, FACT–that He knows everything from the beginning does not make this into an Arminian text, despite the wishful thinking of semi- or full-on Pelagianists who say there is something good left in man that can choose the good of Salvation or make some kind of dramatic exception for Him. Beloved, that’s out of the Scriptures, although I will be accused of some form of Gnosticism and called a Calvinist.

Those ideas were not written by John Calvin or even the Apostle Paul. They were written in the blood of our Messiah Jesus before the foundation of the world. Jesus is saying in absolute clarity, in the cultural terms of the day, in the known theology of the time, to the cultural and religious audience of His day that He is the Messiah, the one who saves, and He is also in charge of choosing His own people to be saved. Read those verses in Romans 8:29–30 again: “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” There is no reference to percentages or numbers of those whom the Father foreknew. So how many of the Foreknown did He predestine or foreordain? We must logically assume ALL of them. How many of those predestined did He call? Again, no reference to number or percentage, so we must logically assume ALL of them. Of those called, how many of them did He justify? Again, for the same reasons, ALL of them. And of those justified, how many did He glorify? Again, same reasoning, ALL of them. And I’ll point something important out here: all these verbs are in the past tense! As far as God is concerned, because He is outside time, THIS IS A DONE DEAL!!! It can only be a done deal if He already knows who these individuals are. If anyone has a different understanding, you are cordially invited to drop that into the comments below, and I will read it. I will think and pray about it. I will subject it to the same Socratic method to arrive at truth I always use, and I may even respond in patience and kindness as long as you are polite. The moment bad words come out, your comment will be deleted, because I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone only interested in an argument. However, if, like we are here, you are interested in pursuing the truth no matter where that may lead us, then we are here for that.

So in His typically calm and level-headed way, our Lord Jesus has spoken truth to power once again. I chuckle at that, because the real power here is Christ. It would be impossible for Him to speak truth to power unless He is talking to Himself, and I haven’t come across a case of that in Scripture yet, and I’ve been looking for over 40 years.

That’s what I saw in the text this time!

Next time, we will be looking at Mark 3:1-6, which I have titled Lord of the Sabbath, Part II.