“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”

Mark 2:23-28
Jesus and The Synoptic Gospels
Dr. Charette
04/08/13

Mark 2:23-28
“One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?’ He answered, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:23-28, NIV).

Introduction
This paper will focus on the passage stated above, specifically the last statement; “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The Sabbath is a reoccurring issue between Jesus and the religious rulers. In this paper I plan to research the reason why the Sabbath was created, give an exegetical view on this passage, and show how we can learn from this teaching.

The Sabbath
The Sabbath was established when God created the Earth. For in Genesis 2:2-3 it says, “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done” (NIV). The Sabbath is also the Fourth Commandment, which is the longest of the Ten Commandments. It enjoins Jews to abstain from every kind of labor since God had rested on the seventh day of creation (“Mark 2:23-28,” n.d., n.p.). According to William Baldwin, “The Sabbath day was not only rooted in creation, it is a tenet of God’s unchanging law” (Baldwin, 1997, n.p.). In other words, this law was created in the beginning and will always be a part of God’s law and our lives as Christians.
The Sabbath was created for the well being of humans. “God intended the Sabbath to be a gracious gift, a release from the necessity of seven day toil, so that anyone who interprets the Law as to make the Sabbath a burden, to inhibit the free course of God’s mercy, merely reveals his own ignorance of God and His purposes” (Garland, 1997, p. 107). Some believe, God provided the seventh day as a reminder of what had been lost. Not only is it a reminder of what had been lost but also what we could look forward to in the future. In the very beginning, before there were Jews and Gentiles, God created something for Man, a sanctified day of rest (“Who was the Sabbath created for?” n.d., n.p.).
This controversy occurred in the time of Jesus’ ministry. During this time the Jews felt that the Sabbath was more than just a matter of obedience to rules. They believed it was a way that they could honor Yahweh’s holiness. They referred to the Sabbath as a “sanctuary in time.” “Its observance made Israel distinct as a nation, bolstered Jewish identity over against others, and served as a bulwark against assimilation to pagan culture”(Garland, 1997, p. 115). The Jews in the Diaspora believed that keeping the Sabbath day holy was a profession of faith, a national identity marker (Garland, 1997, p.115).

Form, Structure & Setting
The form of this passage seems to be a form of a controversy narrative. Its constituent elements of the setting, question, and response are complicated by an extended response. On the surface of this passage Jesus seems to give three responses to the Pharisees. The first is a counter-question, which is a response to a question that is either stated or implied. The second is a gnomic saying and the third was a Christological statement (Guelich, 1989, p.119).
Now looking at it structurally, the opponent’s pose a question based on observed behavior of the disciples. Jesus responds with two questions. The first question sets the stage by making a reference to David and his companions’ need and hunger in the Old Testament. The second question then describes what David did to satisfy his and his companions hunger. “The question and counter-question are interrelated verbally and thematically (Guelich, 1989, p. 120).” Jesus then replies with two additional statements. The first statement is a gnomic saying in which he speaks directly to the Sabbath issue. The second statement is a Christological statement in which he declares the Son of Man’s authority over the Sabbath. Both of these statements are said to have no direct verbal linkage to the counter-questions, however they do have a logical connection. This connection was in showing that Jesus has authority to provide for his own the same way David did (Guelich, 1989, p. 120).
Lastly the setting of this passage in Mark follows two other controversy narratives between Jesus and his opponents. These narratives were focused on issues of food as well (Guelich, 1989, p. 120).

Exegetical View
Mark 2:23 provides the temporal and local setting. This setting was a grain field ripe for harvest on the Sabbath day (Guelich, 1989, p. 120). The main point of contention in this verse was not the act of harvesting because it was allowed in the law. For it says in Deuteronomy 23:25, “If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grains.” Therefore it was fine for the disciples to pick the wheat and eat it (Longman III & Garland, 2010, p. 734).
In the next verse, verse 24, it talks about the Pharisees response. The Pharisees are not mad that the disciples are eating the grain but rather objecting the harvesting of grain on the Sabbath. According to the Mishnah, reaping is one of thirty-nine acts that are forbidden to do on the Sabbath (Longman III & Garland, 2010, p. 734). It was assumed among the religious leaders that a teacher was responsible for the behavior of these disciples. Therefore the Pharisees address Jesus directly and raise a question of halakha, what is legally permitted or prohibited (Lane, 1974, p. 115).
Verses 25-26 talk about Jesus’ counterquestion response. The question is referring to David and his companions in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 (Longman III & Garland, 2010, p. 734). Jesus’ use of scripture has been viewed as an example of scribal or rabbinic casuistry, however this has been proven false because Jesus failed to use two different biblical texts. His analogy would have to have been based on identical wording in two different scriptural passages. Therefore Mark 25-26 does not correspond verbally at any point with 1 Samuel 21. When Jesus mentioned David’s “need” and “hunger” the rabbis would have a general tendency to justify David’s actions because they were ravenously hungry and there lives were in danger (Guelich, 1989, p. 122). Jesus was not claiming that the Sabbath day was broken with David but instead was saying that such violations under certain conditions are warranted. “Human need is a higher law than religious ritual” (Longman III & Garland, 2010, p. 734). The main problem in the allusion to David’s act is the reference to Abiathar. This incident occurred when Ahimelech was the high priest therefore it was he who gave David the bread. Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech who escaped the massacre of the high priestly family. It is assumed that this is a primitive error that entered the tradition before it came into Mark’s hands (Lane, 1974, p. 115)
Verse 27 has been interpreted in several different ways. Many believe it was the original response to the Pharisees’ question. Others view it as an addition to verses, 23-26. But something interesting is that neither Matthew nor Luke carries this verse in their parallels (Guelich, 1989, p. 124). Jesus concludes with a pronouncement. This pronouncement affirms that the Sabbath was not created for its own sake; the Sabbath is a gift from God to the human beings. “Its purpose was not to put people in a king of straightjacket. It was for their good, to provide rest form labor and opportunity for worship” (Longman III & Garland, 2010, p. 735).
Finally in verse 28, Jesus makes a final pronouncement: “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Mark is telling his readers that Jesus’ authoritative pronouncement is confirming that he is the Lord of the Sabbath. He is simply declaring his authority. In Mark’s Gospel Jesus does not refer to himself as the “Son of Man” until 8:29 and from that point on he uses the term repeatedly. There is another view of this pronouncement and its original meaning, in Hebrew “Son of Man” means “human being.” This view would fit the context because Jesus just said that the Sabbath was created for human beings. He is then concluding that human beings have authority over the Sabbath. Therefore the Sabbath was created to be a servant of human beings, not the lord. This view makes sense but it cannot be Mark’s primary intent. For Gospel readers would know that Jesus used “Son of Man” as a messianic title (Longman III & Garland, 2010, p. 735-736). The big question in this verse is whether this statement is of Mark about Jesus or of Jesus about himself. The question is not if Jesus claims to be the Son of Man because he does this abundantly later on in Mark’s Gospel but rather does he claim it here? It seems best to regard the Sabbath as Mark’s comment to the church if verse 27 is a separate saying of Jesus inserted by Mark to climax the teaching. If it is taken by Mark of Jesus, the statement is no less true (Gaebelein, Douglas, Carson, Wessell, Liefeld, 1984, p.638).

Synoptic View
Matthew’s account (Matt. 12:1-8) does not address that the “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” His account is the longest of the three and the most descriptive. He states, “There is more at stake here than religion. If you had any idea what this Scripture meant – ‘I prefer a flexible heart to an inflexible ritual’ – you wouldn’t be nitpicking like this. The Son of Man is no lackey to the Sabbath, he’s in charge.” (Matthew 12:6-8, The Message) He still addresses the Sabbath but emphasizes the heart of man and religion. Matthew views the Pharisees hearts as being inflexible because of the rules of religion.
Luke’s account (6:1-5) also does not address the “Sabbath being made for man, not man for Sabbath.” His account is shorter and more concise. The teaching is more implied than in the other accounts. He gives room for thought while the other accounts explain why.
There are similarities in all three of these accounts. They all address David and his companions eating out of the house of God. They also all state that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. Authority is being shown in all accounts; it is the number one thing being emphasized.

Application
In this passage the Pharisees are inflamed by Jesus’ disciples because they violated the Sabbath regulations. Jesus is then grieved by the Pharisees hardened hearts. Therefore in order to make his point Jesus must be provocative in the second episode (Mark 3:1-6) where Jesus heals a man with a withered arm. He could have done this healing in private but he didn’t. Instead he wanted to confront the Pharisees with a clashing view; the view of how to be properly religious. He then forces them to confront the real issue that is at stake which: is God for health or for death? We know that God is for health therefore how can he deplore the working of good on the holy day. In other words what is more important, rules or people? Jesus then stresses that the Sabbath is made for humankind and ignores any other significance (Garland, 1996, p. 116).
Many people today are still deceived by the rules of religion and get caught up in them without acknowledging what the meaning and importance of it is. We let the ‘world of religion’ influence us with all their rules and regulations. Instead of focusing on God people focus on the rules and what they should be doing because they believe it is the “right” thing. Many people go to church on Sunday because that is what they were taught to do; it was the right thing to do. Therefore the people are serving the Sabbath. This is not what God intended it to be like.
The number one thing Jesus is revealing and teaching us in the passage is that this conception of religion is wrong. Christianity does not consist of a set of rules we must obey. It is not characterized by a list of do’s and don’ts. Instead, it is a dynamic, joyful relationship with the Lord of the Universe. Our religious activities have no value unless they build that relationship, unless they are a true expression of humility before God and dependence on Him.

Conclusion The Sabbath is simply a gift from God that should not be misinterpreted. This passage helps us better understand that and why God gave us this day. For it is a day of rest and opportunity to worship God. This teaching exposed how religion can kill our spirit, our Christian faith. For it is not by religion that we are saved but by the grace and blood of Jesus Christ.

References

Baldwin, W. J. (1997). A Brief History of the Sabbath. The Mountain Retreat. Retrieved from http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/sabbath3.html.
Gaebelein, F. E., Douglas, J. D., Carson, D. A., Wessel, W. W., & Liefeld, W. L. (1984). The Expositor's Bible commentary: With the New International Version of the Holy Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Pub. House.
Garland, G. E. (1996). Mark: The NIV application commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Pub. House.
Guelich R. A. (1989). Mark 1-8:26. Dallas, Texas: Work Books.
Lane, W. L. (1974). The Gospel according to Mark: The English text with introduction, exposition, and notes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
Longman T., Garland D. E. (2010) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew & mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
“Mark 2:23-28” n.d. Disableme. Retrieved from http://disableme.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/message-today-11412-from-mark-223-28-the-lord-of-the-sabbath-was-breaking-the-laws-that-he-made-to-address-the-needs-of-the-people-disciples-but-the-religious-gate-ke/.
“Who was the Sabbath created for?” n.d. God Made Us. Retrieved from http://godmadeus.com/Sabbath/who.php.