Leolaia wrote: "As far as Mark is concerned, there is no implication here that lordship over the Sabbath entails that the Sabbath legislation can be ignored. With the preceding verse in context (v. 27), the sense instead is that the Sabbath was instituted to serve, bless, help mankind (allowing man to share in the same kind of rest that God enjoyed), as a servant would help and bless his master, not to burden or dominate over man in times of need as if the Sabbath were the master (kurios ) over man. The allusion to Genesis 1-2 in the passage connects the lordship of mankind over the sabbath to man's creation, when mankind was given dominion (in the LXX utilizing the intensive verbal form of kurios ) over the earth and everything in it. Man's dominion over the animals in the Genesis creation narrative similarly does not imply that man is free to do whatever he pleases to them and ignore the laws on killing, blood, and the eating of unclean animals."
The difficulty with invoking the Genesis 1-2 statement of dominion over the land as an analogy of Scripture for the Mark 12:1-10 passage's use of the phrase "Lord of the Sabbath" is that the concepts are not equivalent. Humanity was to have dominion, that is, what man decided to do with the planet is what would be done, though God put some limits on man's excesses (e.g. the year of Jubilee). In that way humanity had dominion and freedom to do almost anything.
This is untrue with the Sabbath. With the Sabbath, everything was restricted by God, and only a very few things were allowable (saving life, acts of mercy). Genesis 1-2 is not a good analogy of Scripture for Mark 12 for it demonstrates virtually the opposite principle. Once again, God demonstrates He is Lord of the Sabbath and the Sabbath is His to have dominion over and not man.