Mark 2:24Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

In the Song of Songs, the prophet conveys that a garden surpasses a fertile field: a garden enclosed is my sister, my bride, a garden enclosed, a spring shut up (Song 4:12). This imagery represents the pure and unblemished virginity of the soul, which remains steadfast in faith, untouched by the terror of punishment, the allure of worldly delights, or the ties of earthly existence. The Evangelist Luke uniquely affirms that it is solely through the Lord's power that a person is restored, as he alone records the Lord’s words to the thief: Truly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise (Luke 23:43).

In defense of His disciples’ actions and His miracle, the Lord offered examples of how righteous individuals had acted outside certain regulations of the Law during desperate situations. He cited David, who, when fleeing from Saul, requested showbread from Abiathar and consumed it with his men (1 Sam. 21:1). The Lord also highlighted that the Pharisees themselves broke the Sabbath by rescuing an animal that had fallen into a pit. Moreover, the priests could not strictly adhere to the commandment of rest since they were engaged in offering sacrifices, which was even more pronounced on ordinary days. The Lord emphasized that something greater than the temple was present among them. Therefore, the disciples, acting in service to this greater purpose, did not violate the temple, which is merely a transient dwelling of the Almighty and His laws.

The Lord reminded them of the prophetic words, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," underscoring that showing compassion to the man with the withered hand held greater importance than merely observing a cessation from work; the Sabbath exists for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. The Sabbath, like any other time, is intended for performing good deeds rather than evil; neglecting a good act beneficial to a neighbor is also a breach. Ultimately, the Lord reiterated what He had declared in Jerusalem—that the Son of Man is indeed Lord of the Sabbath.

There’s no inconsistency here; the Pharisees were extremely vigilant about the actions of Jesus and His followers, and their animosity toward Him was intense. It is not surprising that some Pharisees addressed their reprimand to the disciples, whether before or after having confronted Jesus. Thus, while two Gospel writers recorded the inquiry made to Jesus, one noted the question directed at the disciples, confirming the reliability of all three accounts. The Pharisees limited their condemnation to the disciples’ perceived Sabbath violation, aware that after the second day of Passover it was permissible to consume bread and grains from the new harvest. They also recognized that plucking grain from someone else’s field with one’s hands was allowed, provided it was not done with a sickle (Deuteronomy 23:25).

19:9-10, Deuteronomy 24:19-22). Exercising this right, the disciples gathered the grains, rubbed them in their hands, and consumed them. Notably, this occurred on the Sabbath. The vigilant adversaries eagerly seized upon this apparent violation of Sabbath rest. According to scholarly rabbinical interpretations, plucking the grains was viewed as equivalent to harvesting, while rubbing them was considered akin to threshing, an offense punishable by stoning. In their eyes, such an act represented a grave transgression. Historical accounts recall instances where devoted Jews chose to starve rather than compromise the Sabbath observance. One Jewish helmsman, facing the threat of death, resolutely refused to touch the rudder during a violent storm after sunset, when the Sabbath had begun. In stark contrast, these audacious Galileans and their Teacher could not endure even a few hours of hunger, openly disregarding the sanctity of the Sabbath. Seizing this moment, the Pharisees swiftly surrounded the Saviour, derisively highlighting the apostles' actions, proclaiming, "Look at what they are doing!" while indicating the disciples with disdain, exclaiming that they were "doing on the Sabbath what they ought not to do!"

It seems more plausible that Mark used the name of Abiathar in place of his father's, as the son was more renowned and held in higher regard by the Jewish people. Thus, this does not represent a chronological error. The son of the high priest was his legitimate successor and supported his father in fulfilling his priestly duties in various capacities. Consequently, it is not unusual that he was referred to by the populace as high priest even while his father remained alive, a title he would later inherit. Furthermore, Abiathar separated from Saul, who was hostile toward David, and allied himself with David, bringing along the ephod, a part of the high priestly garments. He enjoyed a lengthy tenure as high priest during King David's reign, making it logical that in accounts relating to David, Abiathar—not Abimelech—would be mentioned and associated with him. Regardless, it is historically accurate that the event described occurred during the tenure of Abiathar, who later served as high priest under King David.

However, the Pharisees viewed the disciples’ actions, driven by necessity, as a breach of the Sabbath rest. They confronted Jesus with the accusation: ‘Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath,’ and questioned the disciples directly: ‘Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?’ The Mosaic law restricted activities on the Sabbath, allowing only those deemed essential, so that the Israelites could wholly dedicate the seventh day to the Lord (Ex. 20:10; 31:13-17; 34:21; 35:2; Num. 15:32-36; Deut. 5:14). Over time, the elders’ traditions and the minor interpretations of the rabbis intensified the restrictions of Sabbath observance to the point where even acts of kindness (Matt. 12:10; Mk. 3:2; Lk. 6:7, 13, 14; Jn. 9:14, 16) were deemed violations of its sanctity. For the Pharisees, the charge not only implicated the disciples but also targeted the Master Himself, who permitted such actions on the Sabbath.