This sermon is from the Rev. Charles G. Dennison sermon archive, part of the “Lord of the Sabbath” series, and was preached at Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Sewickley, PA, during a worship service on Sunday, May 13, 1990.

We will begin our scripture reading this morning in the book of 1 Samuel, chapter 21. We are reading verses 1 through 6. I will be reading from the New American Standard Version this morning. Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with you?” And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commissioned me with a matter, and he has said to me, ‘Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you, and with which I have commissioned you.’ I have directed the young men to a certain place.”

Now, therefore, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found.” And the priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread on hand. But there is consecrated bread, if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” And David answered the priest and said, “Surely women have been kept from us, as previously, when I set out and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey. How much more today will their vessels be holy?” So the priest gave him consecrated bread, for there was no bread there except the bread of the presence, which had been removed from before the Lord in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.

Then turning to Mark’s Gospel, chapter 2, verses 23 to 28, it came about that when Jesus was passing through the grain fields on the Sabbath, his disciples began to walk along while picking heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” He replied to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and became hungry, he and his companions? 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?” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” May we come unto You, Lord Jesus, we who labor and are heavy laden, and may we and all through Your word find You and that promised rest for our souls. So we pray it through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

When twenty centuries ago, on a particular Sabbath day, a group of twelve men moved through a Capernaum grain field, plucking grain as they went, they were led by Jesus, who either encouraged them or chose to ignore what they were doing. What they did could be considered lawful under ordinary circumstances. The law had made provision: even though one was walking through a field not one’s own, it was permitted, according to Deuteronomy 23, verse 25, to pluck heads of grain to feed oneself. But today is the Sabbath, the day of rest, and Israel’s day of worship. In that field there is not only that group of twelve men with Jesus as their leader, but also the guardians of the law, the Pharisees, who observe Jesus and his disciples. For these Pharisees, the moral command takes precedence in this case—the fourth of the Ten Commandments. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. And so the commandment goes. You know how it reads.

For these guardians of the law, the moral command, this fourth commandment of the ten, carries greater weight and determines the application of the lesser provisions in the law. Lesser provisions, such as the one concerning the eating of kernels from stalks of standing grain in your neighbor’s field.

Therefore, according to these guardians of the law, the Pharisees plucking grain on the Sabbath day was judged to be labor, work. It was no more permissible than the owner of that field harvesting his grain on that day. The disciples, the Pharisees say, have broken the Sabbath.

Now the interesting point is that Jesus does not argue with the Pharisees, at least not in the way he does on other occasions. He could have pointed out to them that there is no specific text in the Old Testament that forbids the plucking of grain on the Sabbath. But he does not do that. And even though we might judge that here, as on so many other occasions, the Pharisees have imposed their own traditions on the law, Jesus does not make that observation. He does not raise that objection.

Rather, he responds, acting as if the Pharisees have a case. They have a case, as far as the law is concerned, and as far as their reading of the law is concerned. So it is in this text, in Mark chapter 2, that the question of whether the Pharisees are actually correct in their reading of the commandments becomes immaterial. For it seems as if Jesus treats their reading as correct. That this is actually the case becomes clear from the exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees.

The Pharisees ask, why are your disciples doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath? The important words here are, what is not lawful? But now look down at verse 26. There, Jesus uses a near equivalent of these words in his response to the Pharisees. He says that David and his companions did what was not lawful.

When they ate that special bread, the showbread—the bread from the table in the tabernacle that was set before the presence of God—you know, and as we have read this morning, that bread belonged to the priests. Only they were permitted to eat it. They were to eat it when it was replaced each week with fresh loaves. It was not to be given to anyone else.

But Jesus is saying that what David did was unlawful. At the same time, he is also acknowledging the point the Pharisees have made—that what the disciples are doing is unlawful. How can this be? How is it possible for Jesus to endorse what is unlawful? How is it possible for his disciples to stand in opposition to the law and then be defended by Jesus? Did not God give the law? Would not opposition to the law be equivalent to opposition to God? Of course. Or is Jesus perhaps suggesting something like this?

There are, after all, situations in which it is right to break the law. That idea sounds familiar. I recall a movement at one time called situational ethics. I believe some prominent figures, such as Jeb Stuart Magruder and Chuck Colson, referred to situational ethics in their own cases at one time.

So is Jesus saying that, well, you who are zealous for the law must understand that in certain circumstances, it is right to act in ways that are otherwise wrong? Or is Jesus taking the approach that many people take today? Is he saying that picking grain on the Sabbath day is not serious? I mean, this is such a minor matter that even if it is unlawful, God does not care. Well, I think it is clear to you that we are dealing with a very difficult problem—a complex issue that the Church has tried to address throughout her history, and not always successfully.

Some, in their response to this text and to the considerations it raises, have gone so far as to create a division, and by that I mean an absolute division, between God and His law. They have suggested, it seems, that in order to choose God, one must reject His law. There are those who are for the law, and then there are those who are for God. But one cannot be for both. After all, the time of the law has passed. That dispensation is finished. Today is the time of grace. And that is the time that belongs to us. So it is. In our time, in our circumstances, we choose God and set aside the law.

But you know as well as I that we cannot go in this direction, because it introduces such confusion into the matter. You understand as I do that this tears apart the Bible. It literally tears it apart. Understood in this way, it becomes utterly impossible to grasp the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The consequences are so serious that we would introduce confusion into the nature and being of God, and set God against Himself.

Others in the history of the Church have decided that they must preserve the law at all costs. The plain reading of the text, as we have understood it this morning, seems to place the law in question. It is as if the law is about to be discarded. Therefore, others have taken the course to preserve the law, and suggest to us that this passage is another example of how the ritual and ceremonial law has been fulfilled in Christ.

Do you remember the threefold nature of the law that we have been taught? There is the moral law, the Ten Commandments. There is the ceremonial and ritual law, which pertained to sacrifices, feasts, cleansings, and purifications. And there is the civil law, which pertained to the administration of the State of Israel. These are the three forms of law.

And we are told by many and have come to believe ourselves in some respect that the ritual and ceremonial law has been done away with in Christ, to be sure. But there are those who have approached this text in an effort to preserve the law who have suggested to us that this is merely another example of how the ritual and ceremonial law has been done away with in Christ. While the ceremonial law is abrogated, the moral law remains. To be sure, but this is an example of the doing away of the ceremonial law, the Sabbath and its prescriptions.

Now why is it that we cannot go in this direction? With regard to this text, why is it that we cannot go in this direction? We cannot go in this direction because it was in the interest of the moral law, specifically the fourth commandment, that the Pharisees took the position that they did. It will not help to simply shift the whole passage and the discussion in it to the side of the ritual and ceremonial law.

This is what the Pharisees said: The lesser matter of eating grain while walking through your neighbor’s field is governed by the greater matter. The greater matter being the moral commandment, the fourth commandment. And in that, they were correct. They were right. So Jesus’ argument with them is not at this point. It is at another. Because you see, the Pharisees were content to leave matters as they were.

And in leaving matters as they were, they were guilty of a fundamental mistake. And such was the magnitude of that mistake as to countermand and dissolve their position with respect to the law altogether. You see, according to them, the moral law, you understand what I am speaking of, the Ten Commandments, the moral law, was not merely the greater matter with respect to lesser issues like plucking grain in your neighbor’s field. The moral law was the greatest matter, period. Period. So much was this the case that we could translate their position this way.

Paraphrasing Jesus in verse 27, man was made for the law, not the law for man. The Pharisee’s position is the opposite of what Jesus expresses in verse 27. Man was made for the law, and not the law for man. In this particular instance, man was made for the Sabbath, and not the Sabbath for man.

This is a fundamental misreading. From a redemptive-historical perspective, it is as if the Pharisees believed that Sinai came first and that afterward the people were created. This reflects a caricature of their position. In their view, the law is so great that man exists for its sake. But Jesus reverses this order. He says, “No. The law was made for man, not man for the law.”

What Jesus is saying, then, is this: the lesser matter of eating kernels from fields of standing grain does indeed give way, as the Pharisees claim, to the greater matter of the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment stands, but the fourth commandment and the entire law of God must always give way to man himself. The law of God must always be subordinate to the greater concern, namely, man and his circumstances and his needs. Such is man’s significance. The commandment comes after the creation of man. It is meant for man. Such is man’s significance that the preservation of his life through necessary and merciful actions actually takes precedence over the Sabbath command.

Which of you, seeing your animal in a ditch on the Sabbath, will leave it there? If you will show mercy to an animal, how much more ought you to show mercy to those who are of the household of faith, or to your fellow human being? Do you understand the anger of Jesus recorded for you in chapter 3? As the Pharisees stationed guards to catch Jesus, they wanted to know whether He would heal on the Sabbath day. So He asked them, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm? To save a life or to kill? To show mercy or to withhold it? Can you use the Sabbath as an excuse to avoid the demands of love? No. You cannot.

The Sabbath stands, and how wonderfully the Reformed tradition has maintained that, and how wonderfully the Reformed tradition has also insisted, yes, but also the words of necessity and mercy, and even such things in abundance on the Lord’s Day, on the Sabbath.

But Jesus has one more thing to say in verse 28. We will never be left at the level of a mere internal Jewish dispute about how one might approach the law. Is Jesus right about the law and its meaning, or are the Pharisees right? You see, it cannot be left at that level. And as the passage concludes, it becomes clear that the real debate is about something else. It is a debate about Jesus Himself.

You see, the illustration Jesus uses about David and his men in the house of God suggests, in part, a legitimacy for David in taking that bread on account of who he was. And who was David? He was the Lord’s anointed, the one in whom we see the form of the coming promised Messiah. The law, therefore, is not merely in the service of man generally, but specifically it is in the service of the Lord’s anointed, in the service of His promised Messiah. Or as Jesus puts it in verse 28, the Son of Man, who has come, who has appeared, who has arrived, and with His coming, things change. And you cannot view the law the same way ever again. And now, in light of His coming, the law is appropriately set in the service of that Son of Man and those who are joined to Him, His companions.

So let Him lead. Let Him lead His disciples through grain fields now. Not only in Palestine, but in Europe and in Asia, and in North America and South America. Let Him lead His servants, His disciples, through grain fields—ripe for harvest on any Sabbath day until the end of the world—reaping a harvest, being fed as they go. But also observe Him in His power, for this One makes all the difference.

Not the old day of celebration, but the new. This One who is the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath to the extent that He will change the day. And the foundation of the message that will go forth into all the grain fields of the world will be that this One who came was as a grain Himself, died, was planted in the ground, was raised, and is now harvested for God, and with Him the grand harvest has commenced. On the new day, the Lord’s day, the day of resurrection, the day of harvest, the day of the proclamation of the word, the day of the Lord.

Amen. Move ahead of Your servants through the grain fields of the world. May we delight, our Lord, in the fact that not only are they fed on the Sabbath day, but they are also engaged in reaping, in harvesting. And what a violation this would seem to be—a violation of Your law—yet what mercy is mediated through this activity. A mercy which meets the needs of Your people throughout the world.

The sermon text provided above is derived from the sermon audio recording making use of generative tools. It has not been manually edited. While transcription tools have a high degree of accuracy, the output may include generative textual, punctuation, and/or formatting errors.