Mark 2:23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; ...that he was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields--ASV; One sabbath he was going through the grainfields--RSV; One Sabbath He was walking through the wheatfields--Wey; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. ...began to make a way, plucking the ears of grain--ABUV; ...began to pick the heads of wheat as they made their way through--Gspd; And it came to pass, that he /on the Sabbath\ was passing through the corn fields, and his disciples began to be going forward, plucking the ears of corn. And it came to pass--he is going along on the sabbaths through the corn-fields--and his disciples began to make a way, plucking the ears, TRNTyeager54,5 - Kai egeneto auton en tois sabbasin paraporeuesthai dia twn sporimwn, kai hoi mathAtai autou Arxanto hodon poiein tillontes tous stachuas. Kai (continuative conjunction). egeneto (3d.per.sing.aor.ind.of ginomai, constative). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, general reference). en (preposition with the locative of time point). tois (loc.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with sabbasin). sabbasin (loc.pl.neut.of sabbaton, time point). diaporeuesthai (pres.inf.of diaporeuomai, substantival, subject of egeneto). go through - Mk.2:23; Lk.6:1; 13:22; Acts 16:4. pass by - Lk.18:36. in one's journey - Rom.15:24. Meaning: A combination of dia and poreuomai. Hence, to pass through. To make a journey into, through and out of a place. Always in the sense of spatial progress in the NT. Through the fields - Mk.2:23; Lk.6:1; through towns and cities - Lk.13:22; Acts 16:4; Lk.18:36; Rom.15:24. dia (preposition with the genitive in the sense of physically "through". twn (gen.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with sporimwn). sporimwn (gen.pl.masc.of sporimos). kai (continuative conjunction). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with mathAtai). mathAtai (nom.pl.masc.of mathAtAs, subject of Arxanto). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, possession). Arxanto (3d.per.pl.aor.mid.ind.of archw, ingressive). hodon (acc.sing.neut.of hodos, direct object of poiein). poiein (pres.act.inf.of poiein, complementary). tillontes (pres.act.part.nom.pl.masc.of tillw, complementary). tous (acc.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with stachuas). stachuas (acc.pl.masc.of stachus, direct object of tillontes). Translation: "And He walked through the grain fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples, as they made their way, began to pull off the heads of grain." COMMENT: Cf.Mt.12:1 and Lk.6:1 for parallel accounts. Mark's grammatical construction is somewhat different. Some have accused Mark of using a "Hebraism" in his kai egeneto with the infinitive, but "Moulton finds the inf. with ginetai in the papyri and rightly sees in the vernacular koinA the origin of this idiom. There is no essential difference between the inf. with ginetai and egeneto. Cf. Acts 9:32; 16:16; 9:32,37,43; 11:26, etc. Outside of Luke (Gospel and Acts) the inf. with egeneto is confined to Mk.2:23, which Moulton calls 'a primitive assimilation of Lk.6:1.' See Acts 10:25, egeneto tou eiselthein. This is Moulton's presentation, which is certainly more just than the mere description of 'Hebraism' for all these constructions." (Burton, NT Moods and Tenses, 142ff, as cited in Robertson, Grammar, 1043). We have taken paraporeuesthai as a verbal noun (perfectly proper for an infinitive), the subject of egeneto. auton, of course, since it cannot be the subject of an infinitive, is the accusative of general reference. hodon poiein is an interesting aside. Matthew and Lk are more direct and omit the explanation that since they were passing through it was quite convenient for them to pluck the grain. Mk says, as it were, "since they were making their way through..." Why not? He emphasizes that this is not deliberate pilfering that would take them aside from their path of travel. For futher comment Cf.Mt.12:1. R1043 - Outside of Lk's writings the infinitive with egeneto is confined to this verse, which Moulton (MT17) calls a primitive assimilation of Lk.6:1. T56 - The active infinitive poiein occurs where we would expect the middle (cf.MT159, the active hodon poiein actually means "construct a road"). Ear119,20 - Corn Fields. In the British Isles wheat is still called "corn." But in the USA "corn" means maize, which of course was not grown in Palestine in Jesus' day. The two common grains grown there were wheat and barley. So a better translation is "grainfields" (NASB,NIV,RSV). It is also clear that "ears of corn" as used here conveys a confusing picture to the North American reader. What is meant is "heads of grain" (NASB,NIV). The RSV corrected only half the problem when it used "ears of grain." MARKitGNTwuest58,9 - "And." The conjunction here does not connect this incident with the foregoing in a temporal way, but merely, in a topical. It was another case of conflict that Mark was reporting. "Went through the cornfields." "Went through" is paraporeuomai "to journey alongside." The word seems to combine the ideas of going through and alongside. Jesus went through a cornfield on a footpath with grain on either side. The verbal form is present in tense, indicating durative action. He was going through the cornfields. Mark gives us vivid description rather than the mere facts of the incident. One can visualize our Lord and His disciples moving along that path through the cornfield. "Began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn." The words "began as they went" are to be construed together. "As they went" is hodon poiein, an idiomatic expression meaning "to make one's way." Thus, "The began to be making their way through the cornfield." "To pluck." A participle, present tense, "plucking." As they were making their way along the path, they were plucking the corn. "Ears of corn." The word is stachus, "an ear of corn of growing grain." Robertson suggests grain of some sort, wheat or barley. In his Dictonary of the Bible, John D. Davis says, that the word for "corn" is "the generic name for several cereal grasses cultivated in Palestine, and so staple that corn and wine stand figuratively for the entire vegetable produce of the field." The A.V. of John 12:24 has, "If a corn of wheat." The word translated "corn" here is kokkos which means "a grain." Thus, the translators of this version used the English word "corn" as it was used in A.D. 1611, namely, "a grain." Translation: "And it came to pass that on the Sabbath, He was proceeding along a path through the fields of grain. And His disciples began to be making their way, picking off the grains as they were going along." NTC-MARKhendriksen103,4 - The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord Even of the Sabbath, Picking Heads of Grain on the Sabbath. (cf.Mt.12:1-8; Lk.6:1-5). As has been indicated, Mt's Gospel clearly states that the question with respect to fasting was followed by a double miracle: a. the revival to life of the ruler's daughter, and b. the healing of the woman who touched Christ's garment. Mk and Lk, having reported the enquiry concerning fasting, now as it were turn the clock back and relate two sabbath controversies. In all three Synoptics the two stories--(a) on a sabbath plucking grain, and (b) on another sabbath healing the man with the "withered" hand-- are told in immediate succession. Since neither Mark nor Luke indicates any chronological connection between the question concerning fasting and the story concerning the plucking of grain on the sabbath there is obviously no chronological conflict. As to exactly when the sabbath controversies occurred, much remains uncertain. The four Gospels contain three of these narratives, recording events that may have been rather closely connected with respect to the time when they occurred. Worthy of consideration (first see Jn.5:1,16; then Mt.12:1; finally, Lk.6:11,12) is the theory that the three took place in rather close succession during the spring to mid-summer of the year A.D. 28. I suggest that they may have followed each other in this order: a) the healing at the pool, about the time of the Passover (Jn.5:1-18), (b) picking heads of grain (Mt.12:1-8; Mk.2:23-28; Lk.6:1-5), and (c) the healing of the man with the withered hand (Mt.12:9-14; Mk.3:1-6; Lk.6:6-11). The last of these three controversies seems to have been followed by the choosing of The Twelve and the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount (see Lk.6:11-49; cf. Mk.3:6,13-19). ...Although no chronological connection between this and the immediately preceding paragraphs is indicated, Mk may well have had in mind a logical connection. He has just now described Jesus emphasizing that those who are living in his very presence should be feasting instead of fasting, rejoicing rather than mourning. The evangelist now proceeds to picture the Master in the act of showing that this manifestation of gladness instead of sadness should characterize even the manner in which the sabbath is observed. Grain was evidently ripening. This process, varying with the altitude, occurred during a period extending from the spring of the year until mid-summer. In Palestine's warm Jordan Valley barley ripens during April; in Transjordan and the region east of the Sea of Galilee wheat is harvested in August. Exactly when it was that Jesus and his disciples went through the fields of standing grain is not stated in the text. The place is even more indefinite than the time. A.T.Robertson's suggestion that the event took place "probably in Galilee on the way back from Jerusalem" may be as good a guess as any. But it is no more than a conjecture. The translation "fields of standing grain" leans heavily upon the context for its justification. Literally and etymologically the reference is simply to "that which was sown." However, the context shows that when the trip on a path through the grain fields occurred, harvest time had arrived or was soon to arrive. Matthew reports that the disciples were hungry (12:1). What they did to relieve this hunger is reported variously in the Synoptics. Mark merely states that, in going through the fields, these men started to pick the heads of grain. Matthew adds, "and to eat them." This eating is also implied in Mk.2:26. Lk, more complete on this point than either of the others, has, "His disciples began picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them with their hands." What they were doing was entirely legitimate. As long as the traveler did not thrust a sickle into a man's standing grain he was permitted to pick the heads or ears (Deut.23:25). Nevertheless, on the part of those who hated Christ and were trying to find some excuse for having him condemned there was an immediate adverse reaction,.... MARKj&d78 - COMMENT 2:23-28 TIME--Early summer of A.D. 28. PLACE--In a grain field near Capernaum. PARALLEL ACCOUNTS--Mt.12:1-8; Lk.6:1-5. OUTLINE--1. Walking on the sabbath, 23. 2. The criticism of the Pharisees, 24. 3. Jesus' answer, 25,26. 4. The application, 27,28. ANALYSIS 2:23-28 I. WALKING ON THE SABBATH 23 1. Through the grain-fields with His disciples. 2. As they went the disciples plucked the grain and ate it. II. THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. 24. 1. Careful to watch for mistakes. 2. Objected to harvesting grain on the sabbath. III. JESUS' ANSWER. 25,26. 1. They were unaware of the record and meaning of the scripture. 2. David's exception would surely allow for theirs. IV. THE APPLICATION. 27,28. 1. The true purpose of the sabbath. 2. The claim to Divine prerogative. EXPLANATORY NOTES I. WALKING ON THE SABBATH. 23. Matthew mentions the hunger of the disciples as the cause for plucking the grain. Both Jesus and His disciples had been so pressed with work that they had not time for eating. Deut. 23:25 makes provision for the poor and permits eating a few ears from the neighbor's field. We do not know if this was a wheat or barley field. Mark 2:24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?; Look at what they are doing on the sabbath! That is not allowed--Mof; Look at that! Why should they do what is forbidden on the Sabbath day--Phi; And /the Pharisees\ were saying-- See! why are they doing, on the Sabbath, what is not allowed? and the Pharisees said to him, 'Lo, why do they on the sabbaths that which is not lawful?' TRNTyeager56 - kai hoi Pharisaioi elegon autw, Ide ti poiousin tois sabbasin ho ouk exestin; kai (inferential conjunction). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with Pharisaioi). Pharisaioi (nom.pl.masc.of Pharisaios, subject of elegon). elegon (3d.per.pl.imp.act.ind.of legw, inceptive). autw (dat.sing.masc.of autos, indirect object of elegon). Ide (2d.per.sing.aor.act.impv.of horaw, command). ti (acc.sing.neut.of tis, with dia understood, cause). poiousin (3d.per.pl.pres.act.ind.of poiew, aoristic). tois (loc.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with sabbasin). sabbasin (loc.pl.neut.of sabbaton, time point). ho` (acc.sing.neut.of hos, direct object of poiousin). ouk (negative conjunction with the indicative). exestin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of exeimi, impersonal verb in a relative clause). Translation: "Therefore the Pharisees began to demand of Him, 'Look! Why are they doing on the Sabbath day that which is unlawful?'" COMMENT: Mk uses the inceptive imperfect elegon to indicate the frenzied zeal of the Pharisees. Immediately, as a result of what they saw (inferential kai) they began to say and continued saying (inceptive elegon) to Jesus, with their imperious demand (Ide). Why?...k.t.l. Mt and Lk contented themselves with the aorist eipan. Mk, who got most of his information from Peter, who was present, (probably with his mouth full of grain!) has given us the more dramatic picture. Not only were the Pharisees smarting under the sting of His lash as administered in Mt 11, but also from His analysis of their inconsistencies in Jn 5. Cf. Comment on Mt.12:2. Drowning men grasp at straws in their desperation. Thus the Pharisees engage in nit-picking, like a naughty little girl with a runny nose stalking off in a rage, draging her doll by the foot. MARKitGNTwuest59 - "The Pharisees said." The verb is elegon, imperfect in tense which is always durative in action. Had Mark wanted to speak merely of the fact of their speaking to Jesus, he would have used the aorist. But he goes out of his way to use the imperfect, all of which means that he wants to emphasize the fact that the Pharisees kept on speaking to Him about the matter. In the case of Jesus eating at Levi's home during a Jewish fast, they speak to His disciples. Now, the speak directly to Him. The take issue with Him on the legality of picking the grain on the Sabbath, which was to them, reaping on a small scale. Translation: "And the Pharisees kept on saying to Him, Observe that, will you. Why are they doing on the Sabbath that which is not lawful?" NTC-MARKhendriksen104,5 - ...The Greek particle, which must be rendered variously, according to the context in each case,[91] in the present instance expresses shocked disapproval of an action which, as the Pharisees see it, calls for immediate correction; hence "See here," or "Now look." In both Mk and Lk the Pharisees ask a question. In Lk.6:2 this question is addressed to the disciples themselves: "Why are y o u doing what is not permitted on the sabbath?" In Mk it is addressed to Jesus, "Why are they doing...?" In both cases the question clearly implies a charge, an accusation. What is implied in Mk and Lk is plainly state in Mt.12:2, where the question form has been dropped and the Pharisees are reported to have made the bald statement, "Your disciples are doing what is not permitted on the sabbath." Since both Jesus and the disciples were certainly involved--the disciples were plucking the heads of grain, and Jesus approved of what they were doing--there is no real discrepancy here. The criticism directed against one, namely, Jesus, was also directed against the entire group. The underlying reasoning of the Pharisees was as follows: Was not work forbidden on the sabbath day (Ex.20:8- 11; 34:21; Deut.5:12-15)? Had not the babbis drawn up a catalogue of thirty-nine principal works, subsequently subdivided into six minor categories under each of these thirty-nine, all of which were forbidden on the sabbath? In accordance with this list was not plucking heads of grain reaping? And here were these disciples engaged in this forbidden activity, and Jesus was doing nothing about it! Obviously, what was happening was that Christ's enemies were burying the real law of God--which did not in any sense forbid what the disciples were now doing--under the mountain of their man-made, foolish traditions (Mk.7:8,9,12,13; cf. Mt.15:3,6; 23:23,24). [footnote 91] - Ide calls special attention to whatever it introduces. The translation cannot always be the same, but must be determined by the context in each separate case;... TNICotNTlane114,5 - The action of the disciples in plucking heads of grain as they passed through a field on a Sabbath walk provoked the fourth controversy recorded by Mark. The action in itself was wholly legitimate. The Mosaic Law provided explicitly that "when you come into your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hands, but you shall not bring a sickle into your neighbor's standing grain" (Deut.23:25). The disciples' conduct came under the critical scrutiny of the Pharisees only because it occurred on the Sabbath. The action of plucking grain was interpreted as reaping, an act of work in violation of the Sabbath rest. Reaping on the Sabbath was formally prohibited by the Mosaic Law (Ex.34:21), and of the 39 main categories of work forbidden on the Sabbath in the Mishnah, the third is reaping. Among the scribes it was assumed that a teacher was responsible for the behavior of his disciples. For this reason the Pharisees address their protest directly to Jesus. They raise a question of halakha, of what is legally permitted or prohibited, perhaps with the intention of satisfying the legal requirement of a warning prior to prosecution for Sabbath violation. MARKj&d79 - II. THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. 24. The Pharisees were accusing the disciples of working on the sabbath-- actually of harvesting on the sabbath. The law was Ex.20:10. The infraction of the law was a matter of legalistic interpretation. TCGTC-MARKcranfield - ho ouk exestin. The Pharisees regarded what the disciples were doing as work, which was not permissible on the Sabbath. According to (M) Shab. vii. 2 there are 'forty save one' main cleases of work: of these the third is reaping. According to (M) Sanh. vii. 4 violation of the Sabbath was punishable by stoning; but vii. 8 distinguishes different degrees of guilt, and stoning is prescribed only if the offender has been previously warned. The words ouk exestin are perhaps intended as a warning (cf. Jn.5:10). Mark 2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did,; Did ye never read...--ASV; when he had need, and was an hungred,; ...and was hungry--ASV; when he was in need and became hungry--NASB; he, and they that were with him?; he and his men--NEB; he and his companions--NASB; And he saith unto them-- Have ye never read, what /David\ did, when he had /need\ and hungered,--/he, and they who were with him\: 'And he said to them, 'Did ye never read what David did, when he had need and was hungry, he and those with him? TRNTyeager56,7 - ^kai legei autois. Oudepote anegnwte ti epoiAsen David, hote chreian eschen kai epeinasen autos kai hoi met' autou; kai (inferential conjunction). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, indirect object of legei). oudepote (intensifying negative compound). anegnwte (2d.per.pl2d.aor.act.ind.of anaginwskw, direct question). ti (acc.sing.neut.of tis, direct object of epoiAsen). epoiAsen (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of poiew, constative). David (nom.sing.masc.of David, subject of epoiAsen). hote (temporal conjunction introducing a definite temporal clause). chreian (acc.sing.fem.of chreia, direct object of eschen). eschen (3d.per.sing.2d.aor.act.ind.of echw, constative). kai (adjunctive conjunction joining verbs). epeinasen (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of peinaw, constative in definite temporal clause). autos (nom.sing.masc.of autos, nominative absolute). kai (adjunctive conjunction, joining substantives). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article nominative absolute). met' (preposition with the genitive of accompaniment). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, accompaniment). Translation: "Therefore He said to them, 'Did you never read what David did, when he had a need and was hungry - he and those with him?'" COMMENT: hote chreian eschen kai epeinasen - Mark points out the necessity under which David and his companions acted. hote with the two indicatives make up a definite temporal clause. Jesus pointed the Pharisees back to a well-known incident in the nation's history. The disciples were also hungry. Eating the shew bread in the temple would normally be considered a worse offense than threshing a bit of grain in the hand. For further comment cf.Mt.12:3; Lk.6:3. T41 - autos carries emphasis here, "he himself" (cf. R679, showing contrast). T49 - Ti is equivalent to a relative pronoun here, meaning "what." MARKitGNTwuest59,60 - "Have ye never." The word is oudepote, literally, "did ye not ever," expecting an affirmative answer. These Pharisees knew the OT scriptures frontwards and backwards. Our Lord was appealing to their knowledge of the OT. Incidentally, our Lord did not say to these same religious teachers, "Search the scriptures" (Jn.5:39), but "Ye are constantly searching the scriptures." The verb could be either imperative or indicative in form. The context here decides for the latter. Our Lord justifies the action of His disciples on the ground that they were hungry, and cites the case of David who satisfied his hunger by eating the bread from the table in the Holy Place, which bread was only for the priests. The verbs are in the singular, since David is the hero, and his followers are in the background. Translation: "And He says to them, You have read, have you not, what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those with him? TCGTC-MARKcranfield115 - chreian eschen kai epeinasen autos kai hoi met' autou is an inference from the text of I Sam. It would be a wrong interpretation to take this to imply that Jesus excused David on the ground that he was compelled by necessity. It is unlikely that Jesus any more than the Pharisees would admit that any necessity could excuse the breaking of God's law. Rather, the drift of the argument is that the fact that scripture does not condemn David for his action show that the rigidity with which the Pharisees interpreted the ritual law was not in accordance with scripture, and so was not a proper understanding of the Law itself. It is sometimes maintained that this appeal to David's example was a veiled messianic claim; but, though the reader may rightly recognize a certain fittingness in the Messiah's appealing to the example of David, it seems unlikely that Jesus cited the case of David for this reason, if what has just been said is true. Mark 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest,; when Abiathar was high priest--ASV; in the time of Abiathar the High Priest--NEB; and did eat the shewbread,; and ate the showbread--ASV; and ate the bread of the Presence--RSV; and ate the consecrated loaves--NEB; ...the Presentation Loaves--Gspd; which is not lawful to eat but for the priests,; which it is not lawful to eat except...--ABUV; which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat--RSV; which no one except the priests is allowed to eat--Mon; and gave also to them which were with him?; and also shared them with his followers--Mof; and even gave them to his men--NEB; [how] he entered into the house of God, while /Abiathar\ was High-priest, and /the presence-bread\ did eat,--which it is not allowed to eat, save unto the priests,--and gave /unto them also who were with him\? how he went into the house of God, (at 'Abiathar the chief priest,') and the loaves of the presentation did eat, which it is not lawful to eat, except to the priests, and he gave also to those who were with him?' TRNTyeager57,8 - pws eisAlthen eis ton oikon tou theou epi Abiathar archierews kai tous artous tAs prothesews ephagen, hous ouk exestin phagein ei mA tous hiereis, kai edwken kai tois sun autw ousin; pws (interrogative conjunction). eisAlthen (3d.per.sing.aor.ind.of eiserchomai, constative). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with oikon). oikon (acc.sing.masc.of oikos, extent). tou (gen.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with Theou). theou (gen.sing.masc.of theos, definition). epi (preposition with the genitive of time description). Abiathar (indeclin., genitive of time description). Abiathar - Mk.2:26. Meaning: Father of Abimelech, who gave the shew-bread to David and his men (I Sam.21:1ff). Mk says Abiathar was the priest. I Sam.21:2 says that Ahimelech his son (I Chron. 24:6) was priest. The son, Ahimelech, succeeded to the function before Abiathar, his father died. - Mk.2:26. archierews (gen.sing.masc.of archiereus, apposition). kai (continuative conjunction). tous (acc.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with artous). artous (acc.pl.masc.of artos, direct object of ephagen). tAs (gen.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with prothesews). prothesews (gen.sing.fem.of prothesis, definition). ephagen (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of esthiw, constative). hous (acc.pl.masc.of hos, in agreement with artous, in a relative clause). ouk (negative conjunction with the indicative). exestin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of exestin, customary). phagein (aor.act.inf.of esthiw, epexegetical). ei (conditional particle in a first-class condition). mA (negative conjunction with ei in a negative first-class condition). tous (acc.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with hiereis). hiereis (acc.pl.masc.of hiereus, general reference). kai (continuative conjunction). edwken (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of didwmi, constative). kai (ascensive conjunction). tois (dat.pl.masc.of the article, joined to the participial phrase, indirect object of edwken). sun (preposition with the instrumental of association). autw (instru.sing.masc.of autos, association). ousin (pres.part.of eimi, joined with tois). Translation: "...how that he went into the house of God, in the time of Abiathar, the priest, and the loaves of the shewbread he ate, which loaves it is unlawful to eat, if the priests (do not); he even gave (bread) to those who were with him." COMMENT: pws here in indirect discourse followed by the indicative. Cf.#627 for other examples. epi Abiathar is an interesting use of epi with the genitive in a temporal phrase. Cf.#47 for other examples. Read I Sam.21 for the story. Actually, it was Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar who gave the bread to David. Mark only tells us that it was during the tenure of his father. Cf.#968 for other uses of prothesis. hous, the relative follows artous in case and number. Only the jpriests were permitted under the law to eat the Bread of the Presence. David even (ascensive kai) gave this holy bread to those who were with him, whom he had ordered to wait outside the temple. For further comment cf. Mt.12:4. R603 - Epi with the genitive here has the idea of "in the time of," or "during the time of" (cf. Acts 11:28) -- DM107;Cham122. T137 - Pws is used to introduce an object clause, "how." Cham30 - There is also a 'Hebraistic genitive' which is primarily a genitive of definition. ...Here, hoi artoi tAs prothesews, 'the loaves of the setting forth,' 'the shew bread';... Ear120 - Shewbread. The Greek literally says "the loaves of the presentation" (or "placing before")--tous artous tAs prothesews. They were the biscuitlike loaves presented to the Lord and placed before the altar. A beautiful translation is "the bread of the Presence" (RSV)--that is, the bread which symbolized God's presence in the midst of His people (in the sanctuary). But there is a dispute as to whether "presentation" definitely implies that idea. MARKitGNTwuest60,1 - "The house of God." This was the tabernacle, not the temple which Solomon built. "Abiathar the high priest." I Samuel 21:1 names Ahimelech as high priest. Robertson says that apparently he was high priest at the time, and resolves the discrepancy by stating that it is possible that both father and son bore both names (I Sam.22:20; II Sam.8:17; I Chron.18:16), Abiathar being mentioned, though both were involved. "The shewbread." The Greek words are tous artous tAs prothesews.. The word for bread (artous is plural, referring to the loaves of bread. The word prothesews is made up of the preposition pro which means "before," and thesews which comes from tithAmi "to place," the compound word meaning in its verbal form "to set forth;" and in its noun form, "the setting forth" of a thing, the "placing it in view." Vincent translates "the loaves of proposition," namely, the loaves which were set forth before the Lord. The Jews called them the loaves of the face, namely, of the presence of God. There were twelve loaves of bread baked on Friday, and these were placed on the Table of Shewbread in the Holy Place on the Sabbath, the others being removed. It was this old bread, Vincent says, that David ate, and which was ordinarily eaten only by Levitical priests. Translation: "How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest; and the loaves that were set forth, he ate, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priest; and he gave also to those who were with him?" NTC-MARKhendriksen105,6,7 - "Have y o u never read?" As if to sya, "Y o u pride yourselves in being the very people who uphold the law, and y o u r scribes deem themselves to be so thoroughly versed in it as to be able to teach others; yet are y o u yourselves unacquainted with the fact that even this very law allowed its ceremonial restrictions to be ignored in case of need [note: "what David did when he was in need," the words in italics occurring only in Mark]? Have y o u not read about David the the showbread?" The reference is to consecrated bread, "bread of the Presence," in Hebrew leh em happanim (Ex.25:30), translated literally and accurately in Lk.6:4. This show bread consisted of twelve loaves placed on a table three feet in length, one and half feet wide, and two feet, three inches high. The table was overlaid with pure gold, surrounded by a molding of gold, and equpped with four rings of gold, a ring at each corner, through which poles were passed, so that the table could be carried. The description of this article of tabernacle furniture is found in Ex.25:23,24. In ancient times this table was standing in the Holy Place, not far away from God's special dwelling-place: the Holy of Holies. The showbread was laid on the table in two rows. The twelve loaves prepresented Israel's twelve trives and symbolized the constant fellowship of the people with their God. The Israelites were, so to say, guests at his table, were consecrated to him, and by means of the offering of these presentation loaves gratefully acknowledged their indebtedness to him. Every sabbath the old bread was exchanged for fresh loaves (I Sam.21:6). The old loaves were eatne by the priests. They were "for Aaron and his sons," that is, for the priesthood, definitely not for everybody (Lev.24:9). Yet when, "in the days of Abiathar the highpriest" (see below), hungry David entered "the house of God" (see Judg.18:31; cf. I Kg.1:7,24), the (court of the) sanctuary in Nob, which was the shrine where the ark was kept (I Sam.21:1; 22:9), he was given this consecrated bread. He shared it with his equally hungry companions. They all ate of it, even though by divine law it had been designated as food for the priests, for them alone. The point is this: if David had a right to ignore a divinely ordained ceremonial provision when necessity demanded this, then would not David's exalted Antitype, namely, Jesus, God's Anointed in a far more eminent sense, have a right, under similar conditions of need, to set aside a totally unwarranted, man-made sabbath regulation? After all, to a considerable extent the rabbinical sabbath regulations amounted to misapplications of God's holy law. That was true also in the present case. Much has been made of the fact that Mark represents Jesus as saying that the event in connection with David and his men took place "in the days--or: at the time--of Abiathar the highpriest," though according to I Sam.21:1-6 it was Ahimelech, not Abiathar, who gave David the holy bread. Proposed Solutions 1. The two names, Ahimelech and Abiathar, were borne by both father and son. Cf. I Sam.22:20; II Sam.8:17. In the first of these two passages Abiathar is "one of the sons of Ahimelech"; in the second (see also I Chron.18:16) Ahimelech is "the son of Abiathar." Evaluation. Though this may seem to solve the problem, it is doubtful that there would be this interchange of names in writings so closely related that in the Hebrew Canon what we now call I Samuel and II Samuel were one book. Besides, is it not possible that Ahimelech had a son by the name of Abiathar, who in turn had a son named Ahimelech? 2. The Hebrew text is confused (note contrast between I Sam.22:20 and I Chron.24:6). The NT passage (Mk.2:26) may be a copyist's gloss. Evaluation. Although in our attempt to solve the problem room must be left for any solution that does not ascribe error to the original author, confusion in the Hebrew text has not been proved (see 1. Evaluation), and the variants in the text of Mark 2:26 ... do not solve the difficulty. 3. Mark's statement may be a primitive error. Evaluation. If this means that Mark himself originated this error, or accepted it as the truth and repeated it, it must be rejected. In writing their books divinely inspired authors did not commit errors. 4. The father, Ahimelech, and the son, Abiathar, were both present when David came to Nob, and both gave the bread to David. Soon afterward the father was killed; the son became highpriest and recorded the facts. Evaluation. Though it is impossible to speak with any degree of finality, this proposed solution is the best I have come across. In support of it note the following: An entire family of priests evidently co-operated at Nob (I Sam.22:15). When King Saul heard that his enemy David had been given loaves of showbread and the sword of Goliath, his wrath was directed most of all against Ahimelech; not exclusively against him however, also against the entire priesthood in Nob (I Sam.22:17). Eighty-five priests were slain. Abiathar escaped, fled to David (I Sam.22:20), and became highpriest, subsequently functioning in that capacity along with Zadok. It is clear therefore that the man who here in Mk.2:26 is called "highpriest" was definitely alive and active when David entered the court of the house of God. The action took place "in his time." It is true that at the moment when the bread was given to David and his men and consumed by them, Abiathar was not as yet the highpriest. This, however, does not prove that Mark--really Jesus, for Mark is reporting his words--was in error when he said "in the days of Abiathar the highpriest." It is not at all unusual to designate a place or a man by a name which did not belong to it or to him until later. Thus Gen.12:8 mentions "Bethel," though in the days of Abraham it was still called "Luz" (Gen.28:19). We do the same thing even today. We say, "It happened in Marne (Michigan)," when we mean, "It happened in Berlin, which today is called Marne." Or, "The house was sold to Gen. Smith," though we know very well that at the time when Smith became the owner of the house he was not as yet a general. Scripture contains many examples of abbreviated expression--on which see NTC on John, Vol. I, p.206--, and so does our everyday conversation. The suggested solution (No. 4) may therefore be the right one. Certainty in this matter is impossible. When critics add, as they sometimes do, that Mt and Lk were aware of Mark's error and therefore omitted it, the answer is that this is an unwarranted assumption. Fact is that under the guidance of the Spirit each Gospel writer made his own selection of materials. Exactly why it is that some material found in one Gospel is lacking in others is not always clear. That at times even one of the most precious sayings of our Lord is found in only one Gospel is proved by the passage which follows, recorded only by Mark: TNICotNTlane115,6 - Jesus answered their protest with an appeal to Scripture, calling attention to the incident recorded in I Sam.21:1-6. The formulation, "Have you not read...," followed by a counter-question reflects the language of debate, and is appropriate to the context. Nevertheless, there are difficult questions raised by vs.25,26 which relate to the form of the allusion itself, the appropriateness of the reference to a question which centered in the Sabbath, and the relative value such an appeal whould have in technical debate. The chief problem in the allusion to David's act is the reference to Abiathar the high priest. If the meaning is that David received the five loaves of holy bread at the time when Abiathar was high priest the reference is incorrect. The incident occurred when Ahimelech was high priest, and it was he who gave David the bread. Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech who escaped the massacre of the high priestly family, and who enters the record for the first time a chapter later (I Sam.22:20). Because he served as high priest and was better known in association with David than his farther, it is commonly assumed a primitive error entered the tradition before it came into Mark's hands or an early marginal gloss which was in error moved into the text. The difficulty was early felt and is reflected in the manuscript tradition. An attractive proposal is that Mark's intention has been misunderstood in the translation of the passage. The same grammatical construction occurs in 12:26, where it must be translated "have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage concerning the Bush, how God spoke unto him...?" The construction is designed to call attention to the section of a biblical book where the reference is found, in the above instance Ex.3:1ff. In 2:26 Mk may have inserted the reference to Abiathar to indicate the section of the Samuel scroll in which the incident could be located. The allusion to David and his men receiving the showbread has often been felt to be inappropriate since there is no explicit reference to the Sabbath in the I Samuel account. Why is this particular incident relevant to the situation at hand? Jesus' reference to this occasion in David's life was not an isolated phenomenon in early Jewish exposition, for it attracted the attention of the rabbis as well. From details in the text, and especially from David's words, "how much more then today," they concluded that the incident occurred upon the Sabbath. This interpretation may have been current already at the time of Jesus' ministry. There is, however, no reflection of this exegetical tradition in Mark's narrative. The emphasis rather falls on the association of David and his men, because this is the detail that provides the parallel to Jesus and his company of men. Twice in the text inferences are drawn from I Sam.21:3-6 to underscore this fact ("when he had need and was hungry, he and they that were with him...he gave also to them that were with him"). David's conduct included that of his men. The relationship between the OT incident and the infringement of the Sabbath by the disciples lies in the fact that on both occasions pious men did something forbidden. The fact that God does not condemn David for his action indicates that the narrowness with which the scribes interpreted the Law was not in accordance with the tenor of Scripture. Jesus argues that the tradition of the Pharisees is unduly stringent and exceeds the intention of the Law. The relative value of an appeal to an historical argument like this has been questioned in the light of what is known of rabbinic debate. It was of the essence of the scribal approach to halakha that any detailed rule must rest, directly or indirectly, on an actual precept promulgated in the Scriptures. An appeal to an example from history belongs to the realm of haggadha; it may be helpful to illumine a point of halakha which has been already established or to define the character of the amenities of life, but it would be without force in technical debate. These considerations are certainly true for the end of the first century, and may have been in effect much earlier. In the absence of any reference to the scribes, however, it is unwarranted to speak of "technical debate" to establish a point of halakha. The argument was of a popular kind designed for the Pharisees. If there was any attempt to debate in formal fashion, Mark show no interest in preserving it for his readers. What was important to them was Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath and the pronouncement he made upon it. The reference to David and his men was appropriate because it offered an analogy to Jesus and his disciples; but what is preserved is merely a fragment of the conversation indicating the direction in which the argument moved. Of crucial importance in the argument was the phrase "which it is not permitted to eat, except for the priests," for these words resume the legal terminology with which the Pharisees had couched their question. MARKj&d79,80 - "The reply, as given by all three evangelists, cites a violation on the ground of necessity, and one in which the necessity, as now, is that of hunger. The sanctity is not that of the Sabbath alone, but also that of the shew- bread in the tabernacle. The reference is to I Sam.21:1-6: "In the days of Abiathar, the high priest;" the mention of the name is peculiar to Mark, and is not without difficulty. The high priest who is mentioned in the original narrative is not Abiathar, but Ahimelech, his father. Abiathar succeeded his father in office not long after, and was high priest during David's reign; so that his name is constantly associated with that of David in the history. Various attempts have been made to reconcile the difference, some supposing that Abiathar was already assistant to his father at the time of David's visit and was present when he came, although this can be nothing but conjecture; others, that our Lord or Mark was content with mentioning the name of the chief high priest of David's time, and the one that was chiefly associated with David's name, which is the same as to say that absolute accuracy was not aimed at; others, that the name of Abiathar stands in the text of Mark as the result of a copyist's error. The law of the shew-bread is given at Lev.24:5-9. Our Lord's argument is again, as so often, an argumentum ad hominem--an appeal to the Pharisees on their own ground. The visit of David to the tabernacle was on the Sabbath, for the previous week's shew-bread was just being changed for the fresh, and this was done on the Sabbath (I Sam.21:6 with Lev.24:8). So David violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (if the Pharisees were right), and at the same time the law that gave the sacred bread to the priests alone. Here was a double violation on the ground of necessity, and the Scriptures nowhere condemned it; nor would the Pharisees really condemn it. David was no Sabbath- breaker, as they all knew; neither were his disciples Sabbath-breakers for gathering and eating the ears of grain. In Mt a second illustration is added--of the priests laboring in the temple on the Sabbath without sin; also a second citation of the Scripture quoted in vs.13--"I will have mercy, and not sacrifice"--as appropriate to this case also. The principle throughout is that higher requirements subordinate lower; the application of the principle, that necessity and mercy are of higher rank than any ceremonial or formal duties. The requirement of "mercy" was a rebuke to the spirit of the fault finders, who were very tender of the Sabbath, but cared nothing for the supplying of the needs of their fellow-men. The principle of Paul, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom.13:10), was to them utterly unknown.-- MARKmcgarvey276,7 - The reader will observe that the critical notes correct the reading of the common version here, giving us "in the high-priesthood of Abiathar," in stead of "in the days of Abiathar." This is doubtless the correct rendering, but it involves an apparent conflict between this passage and the account in I Sam.21:1-6m where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest at the time referred to. Abiathar is there represented as a son of Ahimelech, who took refuge with David after his father and the other priests had been slain by Doeg (I Sam.22:18-20), and who was high priest throughout the reign of David. This confusion of the two names is not confined to the NT, for in II Sam.8:17, and I Chron. 18:16, the names are reversed, and Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar. It is evident that some mistakes of transcribers in this matter have crept into the text of the OT, and it is probable that in a similar way Abiathar has been substituted for Ahimelech in the text of Mark. ... TCGTC-MARKcranfield116 - epi Abiathar archierews must mean 'when Abiathar was High Priest'. It I Sam.21 'the priest' is Ahimelech. Abiathar was that one of Ahimelech's sons who escaped the massacre by Doeg the Edomite. A C THETA and a good many other MSS. insert tou before archierews. The phrase then means 'in the days of Abiathar the High Priest', which need not imply that he was actually High Priest at the time. The variant is probably due to a sense of the historical difficulty. The fact that D W it sys omit the phrase altogether--as do Mt and Lk--makes the suggestion that the whole phrase is a misguided gloss not unreasonable. But it is perhaps more likely that Jesus himself or possibly Mark mentioned Abiathar as the High Priest particularly associated with David, forgetting that at the time of the incident he was not yet High Priest. It may be that there is some confusion between Ahimelech and Abiathar in the OT itself--cf. I Sma.22:20 with II Sam.8:17; I Chr.18:16; 24:6. Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:; The Sabbath was made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath--NEB; The sabbath was made to serve man and not man to keep the sabbath--Wms; The Sabbath came into being for mankind, not mankind for the Sabbath-- Rieu; And he was saying unto them-- //The Sabbath\\ /for man\ was made, and not /man\ for //the Sabbath\\: And he said to them, 'The sabbath for man was made, not man for the sabbath, TRNTyeager59,60,1 - kai elegen autois, To sabbaton dia ton anthrwpon egeneto kai ouk ho anthrwpos dia to sabbaton. kai (continuative conjunction). elegen (3d.per.sing.imp.act.ind.of legw, inceptive). autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, indirect object of elegen). To (nom.sing.neut.of the article in agreement with sabbaton). sabbaton (nom.sing.neut.of sabbaton, subject of egeneto). dia (preposition with the accusative of cause). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with anthrwpon). anthrwpon (acc.sing.masc.of anthrwpos, cause). egeneto (3d.per.sing.aor.ind.of ginomai, culminative). kai (adversative conjunction). ouch (negative conjunction with the indicative). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with anthrwpos). anthrwpos (nom.sing.masc.of anthrwpos, subject of egeneto understood). dia (preposition with the accusative of cause). to (acc.sing.neut.of the article in agreement with sabbaton). sabbaton (acc.sing.neut.of sabbaton, cause). Translation: "And He began to say to them, 'The Sabbath was made because of man and not man because of the Sabbath." COMMENT: dia with the accusative carries the idea of cause and may be rendered "for the sake of.." It is because of man's need that the Sabbath was instituted for his sake. Thus man's need has priority over a rule of sabbath observance, as David and his men illustrated and as the disciples were illustrating. They were hungry and needed food. Therefore, since the Sabbath was instituted to help man, the act of the disciples was not wrong - it only appeared to be wrong to the Jews who had no real understanding of the purpose of the Sabbath. Jesus matched the imperfect elegon (vs.24) with His own imperfect in elegen (vs.27). Here is a case where jesus put human rights above the Pharisaic interpretation of the sabbath law. Enacted and established originally because of the frail nature of man who needed one day in seven for physical recuperation and relaxation, its purpose is to serve man. it is not the other way around. When David, who had natural rights which had been given to him by the Creator, and who was therefore important, was hungry, his need for bread was more important than the law which forbade him to eat the shew-bread. In this case the disciples were hungry. They happened to be walking through the grain field. It happened to be the Sabbath. Should human rights be denied when the disciples were hungry in order for the Pharisees to be consistent in the application of their interpretation of the law? The law had said that they might eat the grain. It was the Pharisaic tradition which regarded the necessary threshing as labor and hence illegal on the sabbath. The Pharisees were applying a philosophy of jurisprudence to the law of the sabbath which came to be known in the 18th and 19th centuries as positivism, while Jesus countered with a naturalistic interpretation. Positivism in law was given a full exposition by Jeremy Bentham, who thought of law as having its origin in society. This is consistent with democratic philosophy which assumes that man is rational and good and that, given enough time, he will examine and correct his life style through a thorough democratic process and ultimately bring law into line with morals. In the meantime, however, for the positivist, a law is a law even if it is morally bad, since it is the wish of the people. Positivism believes that vox populi vox deo ("the voice of the people is the voice of God") is a true basis for good law. Naturalism on the other hand believes that all law should be patterned after universal principles and is therefore, if so patterned, consistent with the law of God. For the naturalist in jurisprudence God is the origin of all moral law and man's legislative enactments should conform thereto. The law always means that man should do what is right. Men preceded laws in God's plan. God promulgated laws for the purpose of making man free and happy. When a law subtracts ultimately from man's natural rights - from his life, liberty and property as a man, it should be disregarded. It is no law. This is naturalism as Blackstone, the great English jurist expounded it. Andrew Jackson, while a judge on the federal bench in Nashborough, instructed a jury, about to decide a dispute over a line fence, by saying, "Do what is right between these two parties. This is what the law always means." Thus Jackson was true to the Blackstonian philosophy of naturalism. The Pharisees' philosophy comes down to us in modern times in terms of the Constitutional fanatics who prate about stare decisis and property rights and oppose any interpretation that would result in greater freedom for the exercise of human rights. For them the term "property rights" means land, factories, stocks, bonds, money - in short tangible property and cannot be made to include the inalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Witness the Hammer vs. Dagenhart decision of 1918. The law must not be broken regardless of how many human rights are trampled. Jesus, on the other hand, gave us the "rule of reason" concept. The law is to serve mankind by protecting his natural rights and expediting his pursurance of his divinely destined goal. Jesus demanded mercy and not strict observance of the laws of sacrifice, as the Pharisees were doing. The Pharisees would say that the Bread of the Presence in Ahimelech's court should never have been touched, even if David had starved to death as a result. This is fanaticism. It is the consistency that Ralph Waldo Emerson called "the refuge of the little mind." ... If the Pharisees had understood this they would not have condemned as guilty the guiltless disciples. As the true ethical and moral principles of God's spiritual law get smothered by the rules and regulations of man's institutionalism, the institutional leaders become blind leaders of blind people who wander farther and farther from the truth until they all topple into the ditch. But the closer they get to the ditch the more religious and the less Christian they become. The Pharisees cared not one whit for the hunger pangs of the disciples. They thought only of their legal and religious house of cards. In much modern church life, likewise, the means become the end, and clear thinkers are cast out of the synagogue as heterdox and unclean. ... M55 - Dia appears to have a prospective sense here, with the resultant meaning "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (aim or purpose--R584; cf. T268; DM102). BW57 - Accusative of Relationship. ...It is possible, however, to combine these uses into a single category because all of them express one of two antithetical ideas. On the one hand this category expresses the idea of advantage, benefit, favorable disposition, support, or friendly relationship. On the other hand this category expresses the idea of disadvantage, detriment, unfavorable disposition opposition, or hostile relationship.... "The Sabbath was made for man's benefit, not man for the Sabbath's benefit." Cham118 - dia with the accusative. ... b. With the accusative, it expresses the ground or reason for an act, with the idea of 'because of,' 'for the sake of,' 'on account of.' In dia phthonon paredwkan auton (Mt.27:18), 'because of envy they had delivered him up,' the preposition tells us that envy was the reason why the chief-priests and scribes delivered Jesus to Pilate. The aim or purpose of an act may be expressed also: to sabbaton dia ton anthrwpon egeneto kai ouch ho anthrwpos dia to sabbaton (here), i.e., the aim in establishing the Sabbath was to benefit man, not that man should serve the Sabbath. MARKitGNTwuest61 - "The Sabbath was made for man." The word "man" is not aner, a male individual, but anthrwpos, the racial, generic term, in a sense, mankind, "For man" is dia ton anthrwpon, the preposition meaning, "on account of, for the sake of." "Was made" is egeneto, literally, "came into existence." The principle is that the Sabbath is only a means to an end, the good of man. The rabbis, with all their petty rules, seemed to think that man was made for it. "He said to them." The verb is imperfect. "He was saying." It took some talking to get the idea across to minds warped with ecclesiasticism. Translation: "And He was saying to them, The Sabbath for the sake of man came into being, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath." NTC-MARKhendriksen108 - Not the sabbath but man was created first; then came the sabbath (Gen.1:26-2:3). The sabbath was instituted to be a blessing for man: to keep him healthy, to make him helpful, hence happy, to render him holy, so that he might calmly meditate on the works of his Maker, might "delight himself in Jehovah" (Isa.58:13,14), and look forward with joyful anticipation to the sabbath rest that remains for the people of God (Heb.4:9). But by means of ever so many minute and often absurd requirements, vexing and burdensome restrictions--including the one that forbade men to still their hunger by picking heads of grain on that day--the rabbis were changing the sabbath into a cruel tyrant, and man into that tyrant's slave...as if God's intention had indeed been to make "man for the sabbath," instead of "the sabbath for man." TCGTC-MARKcranfield116,7 - kai elegen autois is sometimes used by Mark as a formula for introducing an independent saying (so probably 4:21,24) and it is perhaps probable that this saying was originally independent of v.23-26--but not certain, since v.27 is a suitable climax to vs.23-26 and kai elegen autois could be inserted into a continuous speech in order to mark a new stage in the argument. D W it read legw de humin instead. The saying To sabbaton...dia to sabbaton together with the following hwste, though omitted by D it (which also read legw de humin in place of kai elegen autois) and also by Mt and Lk, should probably be read. With the saying cf. the opinion of Rabbi Simeon b. Menasya (c. A.D. 180) in Mekilta 109b on Ex.31:14: 'The Sabbath is delivered unto you, and ye are not delivered to the Sabbath', which is perhaps to be traced back to Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees (see I Macc. 2:39-41). But this Rabbinic principle would only mean that where life was at stake, things might be done on the Sabbath which otherwise would be forbidden. If v.27 is closely connected with vs.23-26, what Jesus is saying has a much more general application, for there is no indication that the disciples were in danger of dying of starvation. If, however, it is independent of vs.23-26, it may originally have been connected with a healing (for Jesus' attitude to healing on the Sabbath see on 3:1-6). Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.; so that ...is lord even of the sabbath--ASV; That is why the Son of Man is master even of the Sabbath--Phi; therefore the Son of Man is sovereign even over the Sabbath--NEB; So that the Son of Man is //Lord\\ /even of the Sabbath\. so that the son of man is lord also of the sabbath. TRNTyeager61 - hwste kurios estin ho huios tou anthrwpou kai tou sabbatou. hwste (consecutive conjunction introducing a result clause). kurios (nom.sing.masc.of kurios, predicate nominative). estin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of eimi, aoristic). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with huios). huios (nom.sing.masc.of huios, subject of estin). tou (gen.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with anthrwpou). anthrwpou (gen.sing.masc.of anthrwpos, definition). kai (adjunctive conjunction). tou (gen.sing.neut.of the article in agreement with sabbatou). sabbatou (gen.sing.neut.of sabbaton, definition). Translation: "The result is that the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath." COMMENT: hwste introduces result. The foregoing argument carries the thought back to Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11, which establish the fact that the institution of the sabbath was the direct result of the intention of the Creator, and also that the Creator laid down in the Mosaic law the manner in which it should be observed, together with the reason for its observance. The Sabbath is the creation therefore of Jesus Christ (Jn.1:3; Col.1:16,17). Obviously therefore the result of this kind of reasoning (hoste and the result clause) is that since the Creator made the Sabbath for man and not man for the Sabbath (vs.27) the Creator is the Lord of the Sabbath, in supreme control of the manner in which it is to be observed. Note the emphatic position of kurios. Jesus doesn't want any doubt about it. He is LORD of the Sabbath and what His disciples do on that day is none of the Pharisees' business. This assertion of His divine authority with which the chapter closes is in line with the high position which He had previously taken for Himself in Mt 11 and Jn 5. ... B237 - wste introduces an independent sentence, and has the meaning "therefore, accordingly" (an inferential particle meaning "and so, accordingly"--M144), "so that the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath." MARKitGNTwuest61 - "The Son of Man;" God the Son manifest in human flesh, identifying Himself in incarnation with mankind. "Is Lord." The word is kurios which means "he to whom a person or thing belongs, the owner;" it is used of the possessor and disposer of a thing. In this sense was the Son of Man Lord of the Sabbath. But the word is used in the LXX as a translation of the august title of God which we know as Jehovah, and thus has implications of diety. The Creator is Lord of creation, and Lord of the Sabbath He brought into being for the sake of mankind. "Also" is kai, here, better translated "even." Mt and Lk record this statement as the climax, but only Mark has this little word kai. The word "even" points to the Sabbath as so inviolable in the eyes of these formalists who strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel. Our Lord was no Sabbath breaker, but He set Himself against an attitude towards the Sabbath that would not permit the doing of good to a fellow-human being because it involved with the formalists called work, such as His healing of the sick on the Sabbath. Translation: "So that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." NTC-MARKhendriksen108,9,10 - When Jesus said, "The sabbath was made for man," he implied that God had made it what it was. It was the Lord, no one else, who had laid down his principles for sabbath observance. And since all authority had been given to the Son (Mt.11:27; 28:18), who is one with the Father (Jn.10:30), with whom the Father is well pleased (Mk.1:11), and who was sent into the world by the Father (Mk.1:38; 9:37), the connective "Consequently"--or, if one prefers, "So," "Thus," "Therefore"--makes excellent sense when it is followed by the words, "Lord is the Son of man even of the sabbath" (thus literally according to the original). Greater is he than the temple (Mt.12:6); than Jonah (12:41); than Solomon (12:42), and thus also, than the sabbath! For a detailed study of the term "Son of man" see on 2:10; and on Mt.8:20. Surely, if Jesus, as the Son of man, is Lord over all, is he not then Lord even of the sabbath? Note the word "even," in this narrative found only in Mark. As sovereign Lord he possesses the authority to lay down principles governing that day. Therefore no one has any right to find fault with him when he allows his disciples to satisfy their hunger by picking and eating heads of grain! Summary of Chapter 2 Well-nigh unforgettable is the arrangement of the contents of Mk's Gospel. This is evident already in chapter 1. The appearance and ministry of John the Baptist, Christ's baptism by John, and Christ's temptation are described in the first part of that chapter (1:1-13). Then, after a considerable lapse of time, Jesus has arrived in Galilee with the message, "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; be converted and believe the gospel." Jesus calls his first four disciples, promising to make them fishers of men. A very busy sabbath day in the life of our Lord is pictured next: at a synagogue service he teaches; he also heals a demoniac. Immediately afterward he enters the home of Simon and Andrew, and cures Simon's mother-in- law of her fever. His fame spreads to such an extent that after sunset, hence on what we would call that same day, he cures ever so many afflicted people. It is not surprising that after such a long and strenuous day he feels the need of an extended period of communion with his Father. Thus, very early the next morning, engaged in prayer in a lonely place, he is discovered by Simon and his companions. They are anxious to take him right back with them to Capernaum; for, as Simon phrases it, "Everybody is looking for you." Christ's plans are different, however. Accompanied by his disciples, as many as have gathered about him by this time, he starts on a Galilean circuit. He travels from town to town, and from village to village, preaching in the synagogues and casting out demons. On this tour he also cleanses a leper (1:14-45). As concerns memorization, chapter 2 is just as easy. The Galilean tour is over. Jesus re-enters Capernaum. In an over- crowded house he imparts blessing to the soul and body of a paralytic (vs.1-12). From the stifling atmosphere and tenseness (think of the Pharisees and their sinster designs) of the suffocatingly packed house the Master wends his way to the refreshing breezes along the Sea of Galilee. Levi's tax- collector's booth is in clear view. That "publican" becomes Christ's disciple and prepares a banquet for him. Many publicans are present. Jesus' close association with these despised people is adversely criticized by Pharisaic scribes. They hear the dominical reply, "It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor but those who are ill. I did not come to call righteous people but sinners." Though there is probably no close chronological connection between this feasting under Levi's hospitable roof and the question about fasting related next, the logical transtition is very easy. Jesus points out that those who have the bridegroom with them do not fast. By means of a twofold illustration--a patch of new cloth will never do on an old garment; new wine is not poured into old wineskins--, Jesus points out that for those who have accepted him sadness has been replaced by gladness, fear by freedom. This also means, of course, that the old fear and worry brought about by rabbinical sabbath regulations must be cast aside. So, Mark closes this chapter with one sabbath controversy narrative (picking heads of grain on that day) to be followed immediately (3:1-6) by another similar section (the shriveled hand). Everything is arragned in a very natural--and in Mark, to a considerable extent even chronological--order. The four sections of chapter 2 may be summarized as follows: a. The healing of a paralytic (vs.1-12). Back in Capernaum from his Galilean circuit, Jesus is speaking the word in an over- crowded house. By four men a paralytic is lowered through the roof, landing in front of Jesus. The Sympathetic Physician for both soul and body, deeply touched by the faith of the five and realizing that what bothered the sorely afflicted person most of all was his guilt in the sight of God, pronounces his pardon, full and free. The scribes, bent on finding fault with their enemy, Jesus, in their hearts accuse him of blasphemy, for "who except God can forgive sins?" Pronouncing forgiveness is easy enough. Let him do something for the physically afflicted one. If he is unable to do this, his claim to bless the poor man's soul is false. So they reason.--By means of instantly and completely delivering the paralytic of his illness "the Son of man" proves his claim, to the astonishment of everybody. b. The call of Levi (=Matthew), the "publican" or tax- collector (vs.13-17). Walking along the seashore Jesus is soon surrounded by a large crowd. He teaches them and afterward calls Levi to be one of his disciples. The call, "Follow me," is immediately obeyed. Not only that, but the publican, having sacrificed his lucrative position, even prepares a banquet in honor of Jesus. Many publicans are also present. In answering the criticism of the Pharisees, who had confronted the Master's disciples with the question, "Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?" Jesus reminds them that it was exactly to call sinners, not (self-)righteous people, that he had come. c. The question about fasting (vs.18-22). Once, while the disciples of John the Baptist were fasting, and the Pharisees were also keeping a fast, Jesus was aked how it was that his disciples did not fast. He answers that in their capacity as "bridegroom's attendants" it would be improper and impossible for them to fast. By means of a double illustration--a patch of new cloth is not placed on an old and badly worn garment; new wine is not poured into old, stiff and rigid, wine-skins--Jesus dribes home the lesson that the new message which he is bringing--new as compared with the old, legalistic teaching of the scribes-- requires a fresh reception, one of faith and freedom, not one of fear and fasting. d. The Son of man asserting his authority as Lord even of the sabbath vs.23-28). This same spirit of faith and freedom, of gladness instead of sadness, should also mark the sabbath. Therefore, when the Pharisees criticize Jesus for allowing his hungry disciples to pick (and eat) some heads of grain on that day, he answers that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, and that "the Son of man" was and is Lord even of the sabbath. If, in time of need, it was permissible for David to ignore a divine statute (see Lev.24:9; I Sam.21:1-6), which under normal circumstances could not have been ignored with impunity, would not the Lord of the sabbath have the right to set aside a merely human sabbath regulation? There is one significant feature with respect to chapter 2 that has not yet been emphasized. This happens to be the chapter in which, either directly or by clear implication, Jesus ascribes four names or titles to himself, designations or descriptions that are very meaningful. Also in some of the remaining chapters of Mark's Gospel the glory of the Son is enhanced by appellations which he uses with reference to himself. Beginning, then, with chapter 2, not the following: The Son of man (2:10,28; and see on 2:10), The Physician (2:17), The Bridegroom (2:19,20), The Lord even of the sabbath (2:28), The One who binds Beelzebul, that is, Satan (3:22,23), The Lord (5:19,20; 11:3), The Prophet (6:4), The Compassionate One (8:2; cf.1:41), The Christ (8:29,30), The Father's Son (8:38), The Ransom for many (10:45), The Beloved Son of the Vineyard's Owner (12:6,7), The Rejected Stone that becomes The Cornerstone (12:10), David's Son and Lord (12:35,37), The Teacher (14:14), The Shepherd (14:27), The Son of the Blessed (14:61,62), The King of the Jews (15:2). TNICotNTlane117,8,9,20 - The relationship of vs.27-28 to those which immediately precede, and to the larger question of Sabbath observance, continues to provoke discussion and conjecture. The problems of the text that have encouraged conjecture arise from the MS tradtion of vs.27, the apparent lack of cohesion between vs.27 and 28, the divergences between Mk and Mt, and the interpretation of the title "Son of Man" in vs.28. These problems justify asking whether vs.27 or vs.28, or both united, existed in isolated fashion in the tradition, or whether from the beginning they were joined to the controversy recorded in 2:23-26. Moreover, the formulation of vs.27 has been understood as an expression of universalism introduced by Mk or some early glossator, but inconceivable as an authentic word of Jesus. In the face of such problems and objections it is mandatory to understand the test in its Marcan intention. With the introduction to vs.27 ("and he was saying to them") Mk indicates that the statement which follows has no direct relationship to the immediately preceding verses. This literary device recurs several times and in each instance it signals that only a fragment of the conversation or teaching which took place has been recorded. Jesus' initial response to the Pharisees was broken off after vs.26. The pronouncement in 2:27 stands on its own as the conclusion to a larger discourse, of which only the most salient point has been preserved. The pronouncement was remembered and transmitted for its assertion that the Sabbath was instituted by God to benefit man. Its relevance to the question of vs.24 lay in the re-affirmation of the original intention of the Sabbath which the extensions of the Law in the Pharisaic tradition had obscured. There is no reason to deny the authenticity of vs.27 on the ground that it expresses a radical interpretation of the Sabbath unparalleled in Judaism and inappropriate to Jesus. There is twice recorded in the Mekilta, the Tannaitic commentary on Exodus, the dictum of Rabbi Simeon ben Menasya (ca. 180 A.D.) that "the Sabbath is delivered over for your sake, but you are not delivered over to the Sabbath." Apart from its exegetical basis, the larger idscussion in which this conclusion was reached is not recorded; like the pronouncement in Mk.2:27, only a fragment of discourseis preserved. The Mekilta indicates that Rabbi Simeon was remembered especially because of this striking pronouncement, but no more than the statement and its ground in Scripture is given. The fact that this statement is twice recorded, and that no attempt is made to deny or challenge its validity, is sufficient indication that there is noting specifically "un-Jewish" about Jesus' pronouncement on the Sabbath. Vs.27 should be recognized, in the absence of clear evicence to the contrary, as an authentic pronouncement of Jesus expressing God's purpose in establishing the seventh day as a period of joy and refeshment. The divine intention was in no way infringed by the plucking of heads of grain on the part of Jesus' disciples. The pronouncement of vs.27 rounds off the pericope and constitutes its key point: the Sabbath was made for man's enjoyement. On this understanding vs.28, with its reference to "the Son of Man," should be interpreted after the analogy of 2:10. It represents the comment of Mk himself on the larger meaning of the total incident for the Christian Community. The function of the introductory particle is not to link vs.28 narrowly to vs.27, as if the pronouncement that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath is somehow being deduced from the more general principle that God instituted the Sabbath for the sake of man. Its function is rather to introduce a declaration which follows from the incident as a whole. Its significance can be expressed by translating "So then (in the light of vs.23-27) the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Reflection on Jesus' act and word, through which he established the true intention of the Sabbath and exposed the weakness of a human system of fencing the Law with restrictions, revealed his sovereign authority over the Sabbath itself. With this word Mark drives home for his readers the theological point of the pericope. These things were written that they may understand Jesus' true dignity: he is the Lord of the Sabbath. MARKbarclay57,8,9,60 - Once again Jesus cut right across the scribal rules and regulations. When He and His disciples were going through the corn fields one Sabbath day, His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat them. On any ordinary day the disciples were doing what was freely permitted (Ex.23:24). So long as the traveller did not put a sickle into the field he was free to pluck the corn. But, this was done on the Sabbath and the Sabbath was hedged around with literally thousands of petty rules and regula- tions. All work was forbidden. Work had been classified un- der thirty-nine different heads and four of these heads were, reaping, winnowing, threshing and preparing a meal. By their action the disciples had technically broken all these four rules, and they were to be classified as law-breakers. It seems fantastic to us; but to the Jewish rabbis it was a matter of deadly sin and of life and death. The Pharisees immediately launched their accusation and pointed out that Jesus' disciples were breaking the law. They obviously expected Jesus to stop them on the spot. Jesus answered them in their own language. He cited the story which is told in I Sam.21:1-6. David was fleeing for his life; he came to the tabernacle in Nob; he demanded food and there was none except the shewbread. Ex.25:23-30 tells of the shewbread. The shewbread consisted of twelve loaves placed on a golden table three feet long, one and a half feet wide, and one and a half feet high. The table stood in the tabernacle in front of the Holy of Holies and the bread was a kind of offering to God. It was changed once a week; when it was changed it became the property of the priests and of the priests alone and no one else might eat it (Lev. 24:9). Yet in his time of need David took and ate that bread and thuse broke the law. Jesus showed that scripture itself supplies a precedent in which human need took precedence of human and even divine law. "The Sabbath," He said, "was made for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath." That was self-evi- dent. Man was created before ever the elaborate Sabbath law came into existence. Man was not created to be the victim and the slave of Sabbath rules and regulations; the Sabbath rules and regulations were in the beginning created to make life fuller and better for man. Man is not enslaved by the Sabbath; the Sabbath exists to make his life a better life. This passage confronts us with certain truly essential truths which we forget at our peril. (i) Religion does not consist in rules and regulations. To take the matter in question--Sunday Observance is important but there is a great deal more in religion than Sunday Observance. If a man might become a Christian simply by abstaining from work and pleasure on the Sunday, and by at- tending Church on that day, and saying his prayers and reading his Bible, being a Christian would be a very easy thing. Whenever men forget the love and the forgiveness and the service and the mercy that are at the heart of religion and replace them by the performance of rules and regulations religion is in a decline. Christianity has at all times consisted far more in doing things than in not doing things. (ii) The first claim on any man is the claim of human need. Even the catechisms and the confessions admit that works of necessity and mercy are quite legal on the Sab- bath. If ever the performance of a man's religion stops him helping someone who is in need, his religon is not religion at all. People matter far more than systems. Persons are far more important than rituals. The best way to worship God is to help men. (iii) The best way to use sacred things is to use them to help men. That, in fact, is the only way to give them to God. One of the loveliest of all stories is the story of The Fourth Wise Man. His name was Artaban. He set out to follow the star and he took with him a sapphire, a ruby and a pearl beyond price as gifts for the King. He was riding hard to meet his three friends, Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, at the agreed meeting place. The time was short; they would leave if he was late. Suddenly he saw a dim figure on the ground before him. It was a traveller stricken with fever. If he stayed to help he would be too late. He did stay; he helped and healed the man. But now he was alone. He needed camels and bearers to help him across the desert because he had missed his friends and their caravan. He had to sell his sapphire to get them because he had helped the man. So he journeyed and in due time he came to Palestine and to Beth- lehem, but again he was too late. Joseph and Mary and the baby had gone. Then there came the soldiers to carry out Herod's command that the children should be slain. Artaban was lodging in a house where there was a little child he had come to love. The tramp of the soldiers was at the door; the weeping of stricken mothers could be heard. Artaban stood in the doorway, tall and dark. He had the ruby in his hand. When the captain came Artaban bribed him with his ruby not to enter. The child was saved; the mother was overjoyed; but the ruby was gone; and Artaban was sad for, as he thought, the King would never have his ruby now. For years he wander- ed looking for the King. More than thirty years afterwards he came to Jerusalem. There was a crucifixion that day. And when Artaban heard of this Jesus who was being crucifed He sounded wondrous like the King. He was going out to Calvary. Maybe his pearl, the loveliest pearl in all the world, could buy the life of the King. Down the street there came a girl fleeing from a band of soldiers. "My father is in debt," she cried, "and they are taking me to sell me as a slave to pay the debt. Save me!" Artaban hesitated; then sadly he took out his pearl, gave it to the soldiers, bought the girl's freedom and she was safe. Then on a sudden the skies were dark; there was an earthquake and a flying tile hit Artaban on the head. He sank half-conscious to the ground. The girl pillowed his head on her lap. Suddenly his lips began to move. "Not so, my Lord. For when saw I Thee an hungered and fed Thee? Or thirsty, and gave Thee drink? When saw I Thee a stranger , and took Thee in? Or naked and clothed Thee? When saw I Thee sick in prison, and came unto Thee? Thirty and three years have I looked for Thee; but I have never seen Thy face, nor ministered to Thee, my King." And then like a whisper from very far away, there came low and sweet a voice. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as thou hast done it unto me." And Artaban smiled in death because he knew that the King had received his gifts. The best way to use sacred things is to use them for men. It has been known for children to be barred from a Church because that Church was too ancient and sacred for such as they were. It can be that a Church is more concerned with the elaboration of its services than the help of its simple folk and the relief of its poor. But the sacred things are only truly sacred when they are used for men. The shewbread was never so sacred as when it was used to feed a starving man. The Sabbath was never so sacred as when it was used to help those who needed help. The final arbiter in the use of all things is love and not law. MARKj&d80 - These verses contain an argument not reported by either Mt or Lk. That the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, implies that when the welfare of man conflicts with the observance of the Sabbath, the letter must give way. But of this, man himself is not to judge, because he can not judge with impartiality his own interests. No one is competent to judge in the case who does not know all that pertains to the welfare of man, and this known only by the Lord. For this reason Jesus adds, "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath;" that is, as the Son of man came to provide for man's welfare, and as the Sabbath law might need modification or even abrogation for the highest good of man, therefore lordship over the Sabbath was given to the Son of man. The passage teaches, then, not that man might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of man's welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath-day." (J.W.McGarvey) TCGTC-MARKcranfield118 - For hwste + the indicative meaning 'So...' cf.10:8. The suggestion that ho Huios tou anthrwpou in this verse is a mistranslation of bar-nasa', which here means 'man', is extremely unlikely. ... But there are difficulties in taking 'Son of Man' to be a self-designation on the lips of Jesus here. If the term was a recognizable messianic title (see further at 8:31), would Jesus have used it thus openly at this stage of his ministry and in conversation with his opponents (even if vs.27f. is not to be closely connected with vs.23-6, v.27 would seem more likely to be addressed to opponents than to disciples)? The most probable explanation seems to be that this verse is a Christian comment--either Mark's own or an exegetical comment already attached to v.27 in the tradition he used. Cf. 2:10. The hwste then introduces the conclusion to be drawn from Jesus' saying. The insight to which the comment gives expression would of course have been of the greatest importance to the early Church (see Rom.14:5f., Gal.4:10; Col.2:16).