By Mark W. Christy, PhD
Upon one Sabbath, Christ’s disciples were feeding themselves by picking grains from a field when the Pharisees came upon them and charged them with doing that which was unlawful (Luke 6:1-2). Even though Deuteronomy 26:38 permits the disciples’ activity, the Pharisees viewed their efforts as unlawful because of the many additional laws that had been constructed on top of Mosaic Law in the never-ending quest of the Jews to pursue a relationship with God only through a legalistic channel. To accomplish this, they added additional constraints to the biblical mandate for a Sabbath rest (cf. Ex 34:21) which included an interpretation of harvesting to incorporate the plucking of grain by hand and eating it directly while going through a field (see m. Sabb. 7:2; y. Sabb. 7.9b; Str-B, 1.617).
In this situation, Jesus could have simply responded to the accusations of the Pharisees by returning the favor and accusing them of adding the traditions of people to the Mosaic Law and employing an argument similar to that in the aforementioned discussion. Instead, Jesus puts forth an argument that appears to justify the disciples’ behavior irrespective of whether or not it was in violation to the Mosaic Law.
He begins with a familiar story about David where David ate consecrated bread that could only be lawfully consumed by the priests (Luke 6:3-4; cf. 1 Sam 21). This bread, known as the ‘bread of the Presence,’ was set out for whole week and afterwards was meant to be consumed by “Aaron and his sons,” in other words, priests (Lev 24:8-9).[i] When David came to Abimelech, the priest at Nob, David lied about being on a secret mission from the king, when in reality he was on the run from the king (1 Sam 21:2). Despite this lapse in character, he was fed the bread since no other food was available (1 Sam 21:4-6).
By consuming this consecrated bread, David clearly violated the law as did the priest who aided him by making it available. In response, one would think that Jesus would charge David with sin as opposed to justifying his behavior. Nevertheless, Jesus employs a rhetorical question in Luke 6:3 concerning this event, and the implication is that He viewed David’s apparently unlawful act to be within the bounds of the law. Answering His own question, he states emphatically, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5).
To better understand Christ’s meaning, Mark offers a parallel version of this event and adds this additional answer from Christ concerning His own rhetorical question: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). This additional quotation reveals Christ’s intent. He was informing the Pharisees that the Law must be personally applied rather than legalistically applied. Given the rigidity of laws, they often times fail to work as originally intended in a multitude of scenarios. To resolve this problem, societies rely on police, prosecutors, judges, and courts of law to properly apply the law and adapt it when necessary. To illustrate this, one can postulate a situation where a driver is caught running a red light and is therefore pulled over by a traffic cop. While it is true that this driver broke the law, what if the driver was simply trying to avoid being rear-ended by a big truck that was right on his/her bumper making a collision certain should an attempt to stop at the light had been made. In such a situation, a police officer or judge may deem this driver’s actions to be acceptable. In the same way, Christ deems David’s otherwise unlawful actions to be just. For this reason, Christ rightly elevates the love of God and others as the summation of the law apart from its particulars (cf. Matt 22:36-40).
[i]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.