COMMENTARY ON MARK


LESSON NUMBER 26


“ Mark 2:23 And it came to pass, that He went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and His disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto Him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25And He said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” (Mark 2:23-26)


PLUCKING CORN ON THE SABBATH


INTRODUCTION

               Jesus has affirmed the presence of the Bridegroom, announced by John the Baptist (John 3:29), declaring that His presence brought such joy His friends could not fast. Now we will see how the Pharisees, held in bondage to elemental religion, were not able to understand what He had said. They will confirm that they could not consider religion without placing it within the context of mere human interpretation. Because they were devoid of faith, they could not properly evaluate the conduct of those who were walking with Jesus. His very presence brought a certain joyful liberty that is unknown among those with a propensity to Law. Those who remain under bondage through fear of death cannot conceive of spiritual liberty. To them, liberty is nothing more than license, and men are free to do only what they are told to do. Apart from Christ, this is a true assessment. However, even then, there is no merit in doing what one is told to do (Lk 17:10). Even though meticulous procedures are followed with great care, yet no Divine favor is obtained. There is no doubt that the disciples themselves were not fully aware of the impact Christ’s presence had upon them, and how their joy and satisfaction with Him shaped what they did and how they did it. Now, we are confronted with a situation that is most unusual, yet which provides us with an index to the kind of life Jesus came to give.


THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS PROVOKE A QUESTION

               “ 2:23 And it came to pass, that He went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and His disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto Him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?”


               THROUGH THE CORN FIELDS ON THE SABBATH. Matthew tells us that this event took place right after Jesus had confronted Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum with their unbelief. These are described as “the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done” – yet they had not repented (Matt 12:20-24). It was after this that Jesus thanked His Father that He had hidden these things from the wise and prudent, but revealed them unto babes. This was the very occasion when Jesus called for all who labored and were heavy laden to come to Him, and He would give them rest (Matt 11:28-29). “At that time,” Matthew adds, “Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn” (Matt 12:1). How His heart must have been heavy because of the wall of unbelief He had confronted in those three wicked cities!


               Luke tells us this took place “on the second Sabbath after the first, that He went through the corn fields” (Lk 6:1). This could have been one of the special Sabbaths associated with the Jewish feasts. There are a variety of differing views on this. Some feel it was the Sabbath of the second feast, which was “the feast of the firstfruits.” The first feast was “the feast of unleavened bread,” and the third “the feast of ingathering” (Ex 23:15-16). Others consider it to be the second Sabbath of the Passover, as outlined in Exodus 12:16. This could also have been the regular seventh-day Sabbath of Exodus 20:10. If that is the case, this would have been the “second Sabbath” from the Passover, from which they were to number seven Sabbath’s until Pentecost, which was the 50th day (Lev 23:15-16). The instruction Jesus gave on this matter suggests this was an ordinary Sabbath, the second one after the Passover, counting toward Pentecost.


               HIS DISCIPLES PLUCKED THE CORN. In the Scriptures “corn” does not refer to “maize,” or “Indian corn,” but to grain, like wheat or barely. Thus oxen are said to “tread,” or thresh the corn, separating the grain from the chaff (Deut 25:4). Jesus also referred to a “corn of wheat,” a phrase denoting the kernel within the wheat husk (John 12:24). Amos referred to the sifting of corn, in which the “grains” were salvaged (Amos 9:9).


               Mark says the disciples “plucked the ears of corn.” Matthews says they “began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat” (Matt 12:1). Luke says they “plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands” (Lk 6:1). Other versions say they ate the “kernels” after rubbing them in their hands. NIV Another version says they “took the heads of the grain for food, rubbing them in their hands.” BBE


               This was lawful. It might be objected that this field did not belong to them, and thus they should not have taken the liberty to eat the fruit of it. However, the Law of Moses allowed for this action, forbidding only putting a sickly to the field of another, reaping in quantity. “When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn” (Deut 23:25). Moses makes no distinction of any days on which this action was unlawful. It has a gracious provision for those who were poor, or had no immediate access to food. Thus, the disciples had done nothing unlawful, else the Lord Himself would have corrected them.


               WHY ARE THEY DOING WHAT IS UNLAWFUL? Apparently, these Pharisees were continuing with Jesus, even

though He had soundly rebuffed their inquiry about fasting. As we will see, however, they were not seeking truth from Him, but were still confounded with the difference between His disciples and their own. Now they charge His disciples with doing something that is unlawful: “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”(Mark 2:24).


               The Sabbath commandment enjoined, “in it thou shalt not do any work” (Ex 20:10; 31:15; 35:2). This was a prohibition of productive work that was of a personal nature. Sacrifices were offered on the Sabbath (Num 28:9; 2 Chron 2:4). Children were circumcised on the Sabbath (Lev 12:3; John 7:23). If a man’s donkey or ox had fallen into a pit, it could be removed on the Sabbath (Lk 14:5). Men were to apply their minds to the commandment, not seeking gain on the Sabbath (Neh 10:31). It was a personal matter to be applied with discretion and in the fear of the Lord.


               However, the Pharisees set out to define “work,” developing a whole network of binding traditions upon the people. Although never specified by Moses, a “Sabbath’s day’s journey” was observed during times of Jesus, considered to be about 3/4 of a mile (Acts 1:12). Thus, the Pharisees were judging Jesus’ disciples by their own traditions – a practice that remains prominent in our day as well. Jesus said the Pharisees transgressed the commandment of God “for the sake of your tradition” NASB (Matt 15:3). They also made the “commandment of God of none effect” by their tradition (Matt 15:5). Now these men are no longer content to ask about the disciples, but choose to say they are acting against the Law.


A PROPER USE OF SCRIPTURE

               “ 25 And He said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?”


               HAVE YE NEVER READ? Whether Jesus was confronting the devil himself, or those who were under his dominion, He framed His answers within the context of Scripture. He does not set out to argue with the Pharisees about what was and was not proper on the Sabbath day, for they really had no interest in knowing such things. As all who choose to shape their own religion, these men had already determined what was right and what was wrong, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture. Jesus, however, will not allow them to drag him into the arena of human opinion.


               Although these men sat “in Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2), and thought they had life because the “oracles of God” had been committed into their care (John 5:39; Rom 3:2), yet they were abysmally ignorant of the Scriptures. Jesus told some of their messengers, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Mat 22:29). The Scriptures were nothing more than an adjunct to their religion – a sort of spiritual accessory. The sum and substance of their religion was their tradition, which they preferred over the very Word that had been committed into their care.


               When Jesus says, “Have ye never read,” He is not suggesting they had not actually read the text that He will now set before them. They had no doubt read it many times, but not with discernment. Their traditions had blocked out the significance of the Scriptures to them. From yet another point of view, their minds were “blinded” because of the hardness of their hearts. God had “poured out upon” them a “spirit of deep sleep,” so that they could not associate the Scriptures with the circumstances they confronted. If they could have seen the significance of Scripture, they would never have asked their question.


               WHAT DAVID DID WHEN HE HAD NEED. The incident to which Jesus refers is recorded in the twenty-first chapter of First Samuel. In flight from king Saul, David and his men come to Nob and to Ahimelech the priest. He informs the priest that they have need of food, requesting “five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present” (1 Sam 21:3).


               Jesus says of this occasion that David “was in need and hungry, he and those with him.” NKJV The circumstance, therefore, did not fall under the category of ordinary work, just as what the disciples had done was not “work,” as stipulated in the commandment concerning the Sabbath.


               THE TIME OF NEED. We will learn from this instance that during the time of “need,” ordinary rules can be suspended. When the Law makes no provision for a given situation, a plea can be made upon the basis of “need.” This is an area in which the value of faith and supplication rise to the surface. It also parallels our text, for the disciples “were hungry.” In Scripture, the word “hungry” is not a casual word. “Hungry” means “to suffer want, to be needy, to crave ardently, to seek with eager desire.” STRONG’S You may recall that after Jesus had “fasted forty days and forty nights, He was afterward an hungered” (Matt 4:2). When Jesus cursed the fig tree, it was because He sought fruit from it when “He hungered” (Matt 21:18). A promise of being “filled” is extended to those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” (Matt 5:6). This speaks, therefore, of an usual time – a time of need.


               On one occasion, a “woman” who “was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation,” came to Jesus with a special request. It is written that “she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter” (Mark 7:26). Jesus not only ignored the woman at the first, but eventually told her that she should, “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs” (Mark 7:27). Earlier, when He had sent out His disciples, He told them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not” (Matt 10:5).This was not the ordinary direction of Christ’s earthly ministry. No law could be sited that would justify answering the woman’s request. However, this was a time of need – a time during which ordinary ministries were not in place. It was an occasion like that of a thief pleading to be remembered when Jesus came into His kingdom (Lk 23:42), or a Centurion, himself a Gentile, who confessed he was not worthy of having Jesus in his house. Yet, his need compelled him to ask Jesus to speak a word, believing God would honor it (Lk 7:6-9). Although Jesus went with Zacheus to his house, and blessed Simon’s mother-in-law in his house, He did not go to this man’s house. The ordinary was suspended because of the nature of the need, and the quality of the faith that sought His aid. How we should all take heart that we are promised if we approach the throne of grace boldly, we can “obtain mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need” (Heb 4:16). Now, let us behold how need changed the circumstance for David.


REASONING AT A HIGHER LEVEL

               “ 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?”


               The incident that Jesus references is one in which much of the nature of the Kingdom is made known. It occurred during unusual circumstances, so we should not be surprised at the unusual things that took place at this time.


               HE WENT INTO THE HOUSE OF GOD. The text in Samuel says David came “to Ahimelech the priest.” It is understood that he was in “the house of God,” which was the place of his service. When Ahimelech answered David’s request for bread he said, “There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women” (1 Sam 21:4). It is evident that the priest was in the tabernacle, about his service, for that is where the “hallowed bread” was kept.


               HE DID EAT THE SHOWBREAD. The bread of reference was the “showbread” that was placed upon the “table of showbread” in the holy place (Ex 25:30). Each Sabbath day, fresh bread was baked, and the old loaves were replaced with it (Lev 24:5-8). The ordinary rule was that only the priests were to eat this bread. The loaves that were replaced were for the priests, and were to be eaten by them alone (Lev 24:9). No other Israelite was to eat these loaves (Ex 29:33).


               The record of the incident further states that the bread given to David was not the fresh bread newly placed upon the table, but the bread that was removed, which belonged exclusively to the priests: “So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away” (1 Sam 21:6).


               Ahimelech makes a point of this, saying, “the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in a vessel” (1 Sam 21:5). This bread was sanctified in a vessel for the exclusive consumption of the priests (Lev 8:26). Yet, Ahimelech gave David the bread because of the need, being careful to give him the bread that had been replaced by fresh loaves. Even then, however, the priest insisted that David and his men have kept themselves “from women” – something God also required when He gave the Law at Sinai (Ex 19:15). Davis assured Ahimelech they had done this, and that the vessels, or bodies, of the young men were “holy” (1 Sam 21:4-5).


               HE GAVE ALSO TO THOSE WITH HIM. Not only did David eat the bread, but gave of it also to the men who were with him. Matthew makes a point of Jesus saying, “which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him” (Matt 12:4).


               There was no text of Scripture that could have been cited that sanctioned what Ahimelech did. It could rather have been proved from the Scripture that this was not proper, but was unlawful. Yet, because this was a ceremonial law, it was set aside in order that a genuine need might be met. It ought to be noted that the moral law could not be set aside under unique circumstance. Idolatry, lying, stealing, murder, coveting, and the likes, could not be ignored in order to meet some personal need. This is a distinction that requires the wisdom that is from above.


               THE PRIEST’S PROFANE THE SABBATH. Matthew points out one more word that Jesus said on this matter. He also pointed out that the priests, in fulfilling God-ordained procedures, profaned, or violated, the Sabbath. “Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matt 12:5). On the evening and morning of every Sabbath day, an extensive offering was made to the Lord. One lamb was offered in the morning as a“burnt offering.” At that time, about two liters of grain was also mixed with about one quart of pure olive oil, and was offered as a “meat” (meal) offering. Additionally, a quart of “strong wine” was poured out “unto the Lord” in the holy place, for a “drink offering.” In the evening, another lamb was offered as a “burnt offering,” together with another meat offering, and another drink offering (Num 28:1-9). This was offered “every Sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering and its drink offering” (Num 28:10). That represented a phenomenal amount of “work,” done on a day of which God Himself said, “ye shall do no work therein” (Lev 23:3).


               When Jesus went to the house of a Pharisee, Simon by name, to “eat bread on the Sabbath day” (Lk 14:1), the Pharisees did not criticize Him and His disciples for eating what another person had prepared. Now, however, they have criticized Jesus’ disciples for doing the very same thing – eating for their own sustenance on the Sabbath day.


               The “work” that was forbidden on the Sabbath day did not include efforts involved in serving the Lord. Nor, indeed, was the commandment intended to exclude necessities, such as eating. The prohibition was against ordinary labor that was related to the curse – the “toil” that was bound upon men as the result the curse brought in by sin (Gen 3:19).