23.   And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears. 24   And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25   And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he and they that were with him? 26   How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? 27   And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28   so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. 1.   And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had his hand withered. 2   And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3   And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. 4   And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5   And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored.

Verse 23. Did the disciples have a right to eat grain out of other men's fields? Deut. 23:25. Matthew 12:1 tells us why they did it. Think on that.

Verse 24. Why did the Pharisee note this so quickly? (See Isa. 29:20, 21). What did they think was unlawful?

Verse 25. Could Jesus have answered them scathingly, and exposed their hypocrisy with sharp words? Why did He not? To what Old Testament incident does He refer them? Read the account. 1 Sam. 21:1-6.

Verse 26. Was David's deed "lawful?" Had the Pharisees ever dared to condemn David (the Lord's anointed king) for the illegality of his action? If then in that case the dignity of David's person and position put David beyond their criticism, was not the Son of God due a like respect? (John 8:49). But after all was the action of His disciples really wrong and unlawful? On what other ground does Jesus defend the action of His disciples even if it had been a case of Sabbath-breaking? See Matt. 12:5, 6.

Verse 27. Was the Sabbath-law intended to bring misery and distress to men, or was it designed for their benefit? Cp. Matt. 12:7.

Verse 28. Has the Son of man jurisdiction over the Sabbath also, to regulate it or to do with it as He pleased? What is the force of the expression "even of the Sabbath?" (A. V., "also of the Sabbath." Is He Lord of every other day and thing likewise?

Chapter 3, Verses 1, 2. What was Jesus' custom? Luke 4:16. What were the Pharisees doing again? Cp. Luke 14:1. What was their object in so watching him?

Verses 3, 4. Look over the whole account and see whether anything that Jesus did, or told the man to do, could be called "Sabbath-breaking." What kind of work was always in order on the Sabbath? (Matt. 12:11, 12; John 5:17). Why did they keep still? Cp. Matt. 21:24-27.

Verse 5. Does Love ever have anger? Why was Jesus angry? What other emotion filled His heart and why? Cp. Eph. 4:30. What caution does God give us respecting anger? Eph. 4:26-31. Why? Jas. 1:19, 20. How [34] could Jesus ask a man to stretch forth a paralyzed hand? When Jesus commands anything does His power fo with the command, to enable us to fulfill it? Cp. Matt. 14:29.

THEY WERE HUNGRY.

      Matthew 12:1-8 should be studied alongside of this lesson. The disciples who walked with Jesus got hungry once in awahile. The Lord Himself surely also. Is it a great thing if His faithful servants, today should sometimes feel the pinch? Nevertheless they never really lacked anything. (Luke 22:35). God gave them all they needed as they needed it. They had no right to be anxious. (Matt. 6:25-34). Neither have we. (Phil. 4:6, 7). "No good thing"--no thing that is really good for us at any time--"will he withhold from them that walk uprightly." Ps. 84:11.

MERCY, NOT SACRIFICE.

      God had not made the Sabbath-law to add to the burden and the sufferings of human beings, but (as in all His ordinances) to alleviate their lot and bless them. In the exceptions He had made on behalf of even suffering beasts, God showed that it was not the misery of either beast or man that He desired. "I have desired mercy and not sacrifice." When sacrifice means needless distress, God prefers mercy.

THE SABBATH CEREMONIAL.

      The distinction is sometimes made between "moral" and "ceremonial" commandments: the "moral" requirements being those which are in themselves right, and which can never be abrogated; the "ceremonial," on the other hand, relating to forms and outward arbitrary commands and observances as for example animal-sacrifices, washings, regulations of clean and unclean meats, etc., which can be abolished in the change of dispensations. Such a distinction of course exists. But we are told further that the Ten Commandments constitute the unalterable moral law; while all the rest of the Old Covenant requirements are "ceremoinial;" and that the latter passed away, but the Ten Commandments remain forever. This is not true. For on the one hand the rest of the old Law contained many precepts which would have to be classed as "moral," although not found in the Ten Commandments. (See, for example, in Exod. 21-23; Lev. 18-22). On the other hand the Sabbath law found among the Ten is clearly ceremonial. A "moral requirement" may, in a new dispensation, be enforced upon a different ground, and on new authority, but could never be set aside at any time, not even for a single instance. It would not be possible, for example, that in any dispensation. or in any special case, or at any time God could authorize lying. Only a ceremonial requirement can be set aside. Now the Sabbath-commandment was set aside.

      1. The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless. Matt. 12:5. If such an exception could be made because of the Temple and the Temple-service, Jesus reasons, then His own august presence can much more authorize a similar setting aside of Sabbath regulation.

      2. For the sake of mercy, in the case of suffering beasts (and, of course, much more in the case of needy and suffering men) the Sabbath-law can, yea, ought to be, set aside and labor of relief performed. (Matt. 12:11, 12).

      Therefore the Son of man, being Lord even of the Sabbath, could and did set it aside when and as He pleased. He did finally take it entirely out of the way, nailing it to His cross; and never from Pentecost on do we find the requirement of the Sabbath imposed upon Christians, nor a (distinctively) Christian assembly taking place on the Sabbath. The only time Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions the Sabbath is when he says in the Holy Spirit; "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day," that is, any sort of sabbath-day required under the Old Dispensation. Col. 2:14-17. Of the false teachers who tried to bind the Law upon Christians, the New Testament speaks very harshly, Acts 15:24; Gal. 5:12. The day mentioned as the day of Christian assembly is the first week of the week. Acts 20:7.

Source: First Lord's Day Lesson of February. Lesson 5. February 3, 1918. Jesus Lord of the Sabbath (Mark