AaSelect font size
Set to dark mode
Set to dark modeAaSelect font sizeSet to dark mode
Set to dark modeThis website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and provide personalized content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
Mark 2:23-28 meaning
The parallel gospel accounts for Mark 2:23-28 are Matthew 12:1-8 and Luke 6:1-5.
Mark continues to explore the theme of conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees in this chapter. Previously in Mark, Jesus and the Pharisees have clashed over:
(Mark 2:1-12)
(Mark 2:15-17)
(Mark 2:18-22)
This time, the Pharisees confront Jesus regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.
And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath (v 23).
The pronoun—He—refers to Jesus.
Mark makes it clear that this interaction took place on the Sabbath, which is significant because the Sabbath was a sacred day for the Jews, set apart by God. The Sabbath occurred at the end of the week, beginning at sundown on the sixth day and lasting until sunset 24 hours later.
It was a day of rest, commanded by God and delivered through Moses as part of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament and is the fourth of the Ten Commandments, with the original command to honor the Sabbath found in Exodus:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
(Exodus 20:8-11)
Among all Jewish practices, the weekly observance of the Sabbath was likely the most distinctive. It occurred every week and included all classes of Jews. During the first six days of the week the Jewish people completed their work, but on the Sabbath all labor ceased, to make room for rest. This rest was a vital part of worshiping God. The Sabbath's regular rhythm served as a continual reminder to all Jews that God is the Creator, and they were His people.
Although the Sabbath was intended to be a day of rest, the Pharisees had made numerous laws designating what could or could not be done on the Sabbath. Some have counted as many as 1,500 Sabbath regulations. And as we will see soon, their rules were often interpreted to the utmost extreme. Their tradition had turned the Sabbath from a day of rest into legal land mine where even the simplest action could inadvertently be a violation of one or more of their religious rules.
The restless burden created by the Pharisees’ Sabbath rules demonstrates how their “patch of new cloth” tore apart “the old garment” of God’s good Law (Mark 2:21).
Here are a few examples of the Pharisees’ Sabbath legal regulations that they added to God’s original Sabbath command to rest from your labor (Exodus 20:8-10). These rules can be found in the Mishnah:
(Mishnah. Shabbat 12:3)
(Mishnah. Shabbat 14:4)
(Mishnah. Shabbat 15:1)
Actions such as writing two letters, rubbing dirt out of one’s eye, or untying a knot using both hands are forbidden. These are but three examples of up to fifteen hundred Sabbath laws.
The Mishnah itself expresses awareness of the legal mountain range it had created concerning God’s simple Sabbath command.
“The [regulations] of Shabbat… are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their [regulations] are numerous.”
(Mishnah. Chagigah 1:8)
On this particular Sabbath—He (Jesus) was passing through the grainfields with His disciples. In the parallel passage, Matthew observes how “His disciples became hungry” (Matthew 12:1) as they made their way. The stalks of grain provided them with the opportunity to sustain themselves with a simple snack.
Luke’s parallel passage describes precisely what the disciples did in terms of the Pharisees’ Sabbath rules:
“His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.”
(Luke 6:1b)
The disciples’ simple action violated multiple Sabbath regulations of the Pharisees.
“One who reaps, or one who mows, or one who gathers, or one who threshes, or one who winnows, or one who selects, or one who grinds, or one who sifts, or one who kneads, or one who bakes—[for any of these,] he is liable.”
(Mishnah. Shabbat 7:2)
Their “picking of heads of grain” (Luke 6:1) broke their Sabbath rules concerning:
Their “rubbing them in their hands” (Luke 6:1) broke their Sabbath rules concerning:
That amounted to no less than seven legal violations of the Pharisees’ religious tradition with every bite. And the Pharisees were counting.
Matthew writes that “the Pharisees saw” (Matthew 12:2) Jesus’s disciples doing these things. This indicates that they were deliberately keeping a close watch on Jesus, perhaps even trailing Him, waiting for Him or His disciples to break a rule so they could discredit Him.
The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (v 24)
The Pharisees’ tone indicates that their purpose wasn't to learn from Jesus or His teachings. The Pharisees were accusing Him and His disciples of breaking the rules. It seems that their goal was to delegitimize Jesus and challenge His authority. They saw Jesus as a threat and were seeking ways to oppose Him.
The primary approach of the Pharisees' accusation against Jesus at this point seems to be an attempt to undermine His credibility. Their argument was that since His disciples violated their Sabbath regulations (with Jesus's apparent approval), this revealed Him as either a fraud or, at the very least, an unworthy Rabbi. This accusation was serious; observing the Sabbath was of critical importance and was treated in the Old Testament as non-negotiable. In fact, one of the reasons God cited for Judah's exile to Babylon was their neglect of the Sabbath (Jeremiah 17:19-27).
To be clear: Jesus did not, nor did His disciples break the Mosaic Law concerning the Sabbath. They only broke the man-made laws of the Pharisees, and an extreme interpretation of their own regulations at that. But the Pharisees did not distinguish between their rules and God’s Law. They believed their regulations were on par with God’s Law.
The Pharisees not only accused Jesus’s disciples of breaking the law, but were also deeply offended by Him. They were offended because the disciples had broken the Pharisees' own rules concerning the Sabbath. Beneath their offense lay a dangerous, but incorrect, assumption: that their man-made rules were equivalent to God's laws. The Pharisees did not distinguish between their rules and God’s Law. In doing so, the Pharisees had perilously placed themselves in the position of God.
How did this come to be?
In a nutshell, it happened gradually. After the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, their reverence for God's Law was renewed (Nehemiah 8:8). The Sabbath, in particular, became a focus of strict observance, with Nehemiah playing a key role in restoring its practice (Nehemiah 12:15-22). However, while Nehemiah restored the observance of God's Law, subsequent generations introduced additional man-made regulations. Over the centuries, these religious rules continued to proliferate to the extent that there were as many as 1,500 laws concerning the Sabbath.
The Pharisees were at the forefront of promoting these new regulations. Their intention was likely to create additional safeguards to prevent Jews from even coming close to breaking the law. This approach was understandable considering the severe consequences the Jews had faced for failing to observe the Sabbath, among other offenses (1 Chronicles 9:1).
As often happens, over time, these regulations became a tool for institutional power, with the original purpose (helping people serve God) taking a backseat to a new purpose: advancing the power of the religious authorities. Adhering to the rules began to overshadow the actual Law they were intended to uphold.
This led to a form of legislation that, ironically, began to violate the very Sabbath law it was meant to protect. The new patch (Pharisees’ laws) was tearing the original garment (God’s Law). The new wine (Pharisees’ laws) was beginning to burst the old wineskins (God’s Law). Institutions that are created for protection of others often become more focused on maintaining their own power and influence, and this appears to be the case with the Pharisees.
By the third century A.D., many of the reforms established after the Babylonian Exile were formalized in the Jewish Mishnah, which recorded oral traditions in writing. During Jesus’s lifetime, these oral traditions, known as "the tradition of the elders" (Matthew 15:2), had already exerted significant influence.
Although these traditions may have begun with sincere intentions, their rules had come to replace and effectively undermine the essence of God’s original commandments (Matthew 15:6). The focus had shifted from faithfully following God to preserving and enhancing their own status, prestige, and power (John 11:48).
Perceiving the Pharisees' accusation and offense, Jesus brilliantly ignores their loaded question and reframes the issue according to the truth.
Mark records three responses which Jesus gives the Pharisees.
David and the Showbread
Jesus cites the example of David to counter the Pharisees’ accusation that His disciples violated the Sabbath laws:
And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” (vv 25-26)
Jesus phrased this response in the form of a rhetorical question. His question to them was: Have you never read what David did…?
Jesus is referring to King David, the most famous of all the kings of Israel. The Pharisees almost certainly had read what David did many times, but the way the question was framed was as if the Pharisees had never read this story. The inference was that though they had read this, they had never understood its meaning.
Jesus summarized the story.
One time, when David was fleeing from the wrath of King Saul, he and his loyal followers were hungry and they had nothing to eat. They were in desperate need of food. They entered the house of God in the time when Abiathar was the high priest in Israel. David encountered another priest named Abimelech.
Abimelech did not have any ordinary bread. But he did have some consecrated bread, which was normally reserved for the priests alone. It was not lawful for anyone to eat this consecrated bread. Despite this restriction, Abimelech provided the holy bread to David and his men, as long as they had abstained from sexual relations.
David and his companions had refrained from sex, so the priest gave them the consecrated bread to eat. And David and his men ate the holy bread. This account is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6.
Scripture does not condemn David or Abimelech for this action. Neither did the Pharisees. Although it was normally regarded as unlawful for non-priests such as David and his companions to eat the consecrated bread, the exception was made due to David's status as the anointed King of Israel and the urgent circumstances he faced while pursuing his righteous calling.
By citing this example, Jesus illustrated for the Pharisees how the Law accommodates grace in certain situations.
God's law is meant to be a benefit, not a burden. While the law is absolute, it operates within a hierarchy where love and care for people take precedence over mere regulatory compliance.
As the Messiah and anointed King, Jesus, too, is following His righteous calling and is thus permitted exceptions to the Pharisees' Sabbath customs. It's also important to note that His disciples are simply picking and eating grain for sustenance, not conducting a commercial harvest. This mirrors the story of David, emphasizing that the need for basic sustenance is a valid consideration under the law.
The Sabbath and Man
The second thing which Mark records concerning what Jesus said to the Pharisees in response to their accusatory question was a parallel statement:
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (v 27).
The first part of the parallel statement states a positive truth: The Sabbath was made for man.
In this remark, Jesus powerfully reminded the Pharisees that God cares about people. God did not create people so that He could give them commandments. And God’s commandments are not made to spoil people’s fun. God gave His commandments because they guide people in how to live in the most fruitful and beneficial manner possible. God created people because He loved them. And the commandments God gives are for people’s benefit and blessing.
The Sabbath (commandment) was made for the benefit of man. People are more important to God than the rule itself.
The second part of this parallel statement asserts the same truth from the negative perspective: and not man for the Sabbath.
Again, God did not create people so that He could give them commandments. But one might wrongly think, based on how the Pharisees regarded their religious tradition, that God cared more for His commands than for people.
The Pharisees used their Sabbath regulations to build themselves up and to condemn anyone who did not follow them. The Pharisees used their rules to manipulate people, treating people as a means, to extract from them what they wanted (Matthew 23:14).
From the Pharisees’ twisted perspective, the purpose of man was for religious exploitation. But man was not made for religious exploitation. Even God did not create man simply for the purpose of having man follow His good rules. Rather, God gave man good commandments for man’s benefit and blessing.
The Messiah and the Sabbath
The third thing Mark records concerning what Jesus said to the Pharisees in response to their accusatory question was a Messianic claim:
So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (v 28).
God established the Sabbath (Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 20:8-11). Because of this, only God has authority over the Sabbath—not the Pharisees.
The expression—the Son of Man—is a somewhat veiled but definitive Messianic term. It was Jesus's most frequent term to describe Himself.
For more, see The Bible Says article: “The Son of Man.”
Jesus was referring to Himself as the Messiah—the Christ, when He said, “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” The LORD had promised to send His Servant (the Messiah, the Son of Man) to redeem Israel and grant Him special authority and power to accomplish the LORD’s will (Isaiah 42:1, 52:13, Daniel 7:13-14). This was why the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath—because God granted Him this authority.
This was not the authority to break God’s commandments concerning the Sabbath. Rather, it was the authority to interpret the Sabbath commandment and follow it perfectly. Therefore, if the Son of Man said something was permissible to do on the Sabbath, then it was permissible to do that thing on the Sabbath.
As the Son of Man, Jesus allowed His disciples to pick and eat the heads of grain as they were passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath. He did this because it did not break God’s Sabbath commandment. And no amount of citations or rulings from the Pharisees or their courts could make Jesus a violator of God’s Sabbath commandment.
When Jesus said that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath, He was declaring "I am the Messiah and I decide what is lawful to do on the Sabbath—not you, Pharisees!"
Two Additional Responses from the Gospel of Matthew
Matthew’s Gospel includes two additional responses not included in Mark or Luke, which Jesus gave to the Pharisees in reply to their question: Why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?
The first of these additional responses, recorded in Matthew concerning what Jesus said to the Pharisees in response to their accusatory question, was how the Mosaic Law included priestly exceptions for the Sabbath commandment.
“Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?”
(Matthew 12:5)
Many temple sacrifices were to be offered only on the Sabbath. It was the priests’ role to administer these Sabbath sacrifices in the temple. Rather than resting from their labor on the Sabbath, the priests actually did more labor on the Sabbath. But the Law considered the priests to be innocent because they were fulfilling their mission to administer these sacrifices.
The Pharisees rightly did not accuse the priests of breaking the Sabbath laws because they offered extra sacrifices and fulfilled their role as priests in the temple on the Sabbath.
Jesus then declared to the Pharisees:
“But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.”
(Matthew 12:6b)
The something greater was in reference to Himself. The physical temple in Jerusalem was built for God. And Jesus was God in human form. Because the temple was built for Jesus, He was greater than the temple. And in the earthly life of Jesus, God was physically present. When Jesus said this statement, God was literally “here” on earth and standing in front of the Pharisees.
Because the Law accommodated exceptions for the Sabbath to the priests when they fulfilled their temple duties, it also accommodated any exceptions to the One who was “greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6) and for whom the temple was built.
Therefore, Jesus did not break the Sabbath commandment.
The second of Jesus’s additional responses recorded in Matthew reminded the Pharisees of the core meaning of the Mosaic Law.
“But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”
(Matthew 12:7)
Jesus quoted a psalm written by King David and the prophet Hosea.
Psalm 51 is a psalm of David's contrition and effort to realign his heart with God's:
"For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You do not take pleasure in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, God, You will not despise."
(Psalm 51:16-17)
Hosea echoes this thought from God’s perspective:
"For I desire loyalty rather than sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
(Hosea 6:6)
The way Jesus introduced this thought from scripture—“But if you had known” (Matthew 12:7a)—suggests that the Pharisees did not know the meaning of David and Hosea’s scriptures. If they had known what was truly important about the Law—compassion and mercy and loving others, rather than extremely legalistic and external applications that run counter to those meanings—then the Pharisees “would not have condemned the innocent” (Matthew 12:7b).
“The innocent” (Matthew 12:7b) could refer to Jesus’s disciples, who were innocent of violating the Sabbath, but were condemned by the Pharisees. In a larger sense, “the innocent” includes everyone who has been wrongly condemned by the Pharisees of breaking their petty rules, but who were genuinely innocent of violating God’s perfect commands.
Jesus’s point is that the Law should be for people’s good. The Law should not be against people’s good. God defines what is good. And the Son of Man has authority over what is good concerning the Sabbath.