Mark 2:23-28 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went… I. WORSHIP, NOT AMUSEMENT, SUITS THE SABBATH. The common heading of this section in the Gospels is, "The disciples pluck the ears of corn on the sabbath day," On this occasion our Lord and his disciples were out walking on the sabbath; but they were not walking for pleasure or even for health. They were on their way to the house of God, as we learn from the parallel passage in St. Matthew, where we read that "when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue." The two main ideas associated with the sabbath are rest and worship; the former held the first place in the old dispensation, the latter the second. In the gospel dispensation their position seems reversed; for, while never sundered and never to be separated, worship comes more to the front, holding a primary, while rest holds a secondary place. On the sabbath our Lord and his disciples attended the usual place of Jewish worship; on the sabbath the apostles, after our Lord's death and resurrection, met for the service of God; on the sabbath, thenceforth the first day of the week, the Holy Spirit descended in Pentecostal power and plenty, while by means of St. Peter's sermon three thousand were converted that same day; on the sabbath the primitive Christians, taught by apostles and following apostolic example, met together to break bread, to read God's holy Word, or hear it preached, as also for prayer and praise, and to contribute for the necessities of the saints. Refreshment for the spirit and rest for the body went hand in hand; but worldly amusement found no place on the sabbath, and worldly pleasure formed no part of its service. II. WORKS OF NECESSITY ALLOWABLE ON THE SABBATH. Stretches of corn-land abound in the fertile plain of Gennesaret. A pathway frequently ran through these unfenced fields, and on these pathways seed often fell and grain grew, as was the case with the wayside in the parable of the sower. Our Lord was passing by one of these, through the fields of corn (literally, sown places), alongside the grain. The disciples were "plucking and eating," as St. Matthew tells us, or, as St. Mark more graphically describes it, they "made a way" for themselves by plucking the stalks that had sprung up on what had previously been a path, and being an hungred, that is, in a state of hunger - for St. Matthew adds this important fact of their being hungry (ἐπείνασαν) "they began to rub the ears of corn in their hand," as St. Luke informs us, and thus sought to appease the cravings of appetite. This was, of course, a work of necessity, and of urgent necessity, on the part of these hungry men. They had, however, only begun this operation (ἤρξαντο), when the Pharisees rudely checked them, administering the sharp rebuke recorded in this passage. III. AS EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATION. The common English Version requires to make two assumptions in behoof of its rendering: 1. That ὁδὸν ποιεῖν is the same as ὁδὸν ποιεῖσθαι, though the former in reality is to make a path "viam sternere vel munire - einen Weg machen," as Fritzsche expresses it; while the latter is to go on one's way iter facere or progrcdi, which is the rendering of the Vulgate. 2. That the chief force here, as occasionally elsewhere, lies in the participle. In this way is reached (1) the usual free rendering, "His disciples began as they went to pluck the ears of corn;" but (2) the more correct translation is certainly that which is insisted on by the most accurate scholars, such as Fritzsche and Meyer, namely, "His disciples began to make a path [-or way] plucking the ears." Though the Revised Version follows the ordinary rendering, it gives, in a note on this passage, an approximation to what we consider the right rendering, viz. "began to make their way plucking." IV. THE RIGOROUS SABBATARIANISM OF THE PHARISEES. The question of the Pharisees is explained, or indeed translated, by some (1) as signifying, "Lo, what are they doing on the sabbath? That which is not lawful;" while by others it is rendered (2) "Lo, why are they doing on the sabbath what is not lawful?" In neither case can it properly mean that the thing was unlawful in itself, and still more unlawful because of its being done on the sabbath day. The superstitious sabbatarianism of the Pharisees suggests the real gist of the question. The action in itself was perfectly allowable, according to the Law as it stands written in Deuteronomy 23:25, "When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand." The Pharisees, guided by oral tradition, interpreted the law of the sabbath so rigorously as to identify the plucking, of the ears with reaping, and the rubbing of them in their hands with thrashing, so that the Law, as they explained it, was violated by both operations. V. SABBATH DESECRATION FALSELY LAID TO THE CHARGE OF THE DISCIPLES. Our Lord undertakes the vindication of his disciples; he justifies their conduct by reminding their accusers of an incident in the life of David, when ceremonial observance yielded to moral necessity, and positive precept to the requirements of mercy. The occasion was that on which David found himself at Nob, a sacerdotal town to the north-east and within sight of Jerusalem, in a state of destitution - "he had need" (χρείαν ἔσχε), such is the general statement; and ready to perish with hunger - "was an hungred" (ἐπείνασεν), this is the particular specification. The "bread of the face" or presence, according to the Hebrew, or "the loaves of proposition," as rendered by the Vulgate, were twelve loaves - one for each tribe, placed in the presence of Jehovah as a symbol of the people's dependence on their heavenly Father for daily bread. None was permitted the use of these loaves but the priests; they were their perquisite. This rigid rule was relaxed in favor of David; and not only of David, whose eminence might be thought such as to entitle him to greater consideration, and sufficient to make his case exceptional, but in favor of those who were with him. Our Lord adduces this instance of violating the letter of the Law, asking the Pharisees, according to a formula of their own, but with scornful irony, or rather in a tone of severe reproof, "Did ye never read?" or, as it is expressed in St. Luke, "Did ye not even read this? " - ye who are such sticklers for the Law and adepts in Scripture knowledge. VI. SOLUTION OF A DIFFICULTY. The name of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech has given trouble. Of the many attempted solutions, such as in the presence of Abiathar, afterwards high priest, for it was Ahimelech, father of Abiathar, who really gave the shewbread to David and his men; or that he had both names; or that the deed was done by Ahimclech in the pontificate of Abiathar his son, as Theophylact explains it; or in the section or paragraph of Abiathar the high priest; or that the insertion of the article distinguishes the lifetime from the pontificate of Abiathar, according to Mid-dleton; - of all these it must be said that they either involve error or have the appearance of mere shifts or evasions. Of them all, Middleton's is perhaps best known, and has been adopted by not a few critical scholars. Thus, in the first edition of Scrivener's 'Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,' we find the following statement: - "In Mark 2:26, ἐπὶ ἈΒ ἀρχ, 'in the time that Abiathar was high priest,' would be historically incorrect; while ἐπὶ ΑΒ, τοῦ ἀρχ, 'in the days of Abiathar the high priest,' is suitable enough." But this insertion of the article is a matter of dispute, for though it is found in four respectable uncials, including A and C, as also in the following cursives: - 1, 33, and 69, of which 33 is known as the "Queen of the cursives;" yet it is absent in this place from א, B, L, and many other uncials, and is rejected by most of the critical editors. We cannot, therefore, build an argument on it. We are inclined to Fritzsche's opinion, that the real removal of the difficulty appears to be effected by the position of the words ἐπὶ ΑΒ ἀρχ, which implies that the transaction took place in the time of Abiathar, afterwards high priest; while ἐπὶ ἀρχ ἈΒ. would restrict the occurrence to the actual time of his priesthood, though it is admitted that with a participle, as ἄρχοντος or βασιλεύοντος, for example, the position does not thus alter the sense. For the mention of Abiathar instead of Ahimclech several reasons might be assigned. He was more celebrated than his father, as also better known to the readers of Old Testament Scripture; besides, the mention of him as being present, and a consenting party to the transaction, would be calculated to obviate the possible retort which the Pharisees might otherwise make, namely, that Ahimelech paid the penalty of his profanation by his being slain. VII. THE CHARGE OF SABBATH-BREAKING BY THE DISCIPLES FURTHER REFUTED. Additional arguments are found in the Gospel of St. Matthew to disprove the charge of sabbath profanation, which these narrow, bigoted Pharisees' urged against the disciples. The rather labourious service of the priests on the sabbath, in sacrificing, removing the shewbread, and other duties, was an apparent profanation of the sabbath; but in their case the Law was relaxed, or rather the principle of God's love to man, which lay at the foundation of the Law, and was the animating spirit of the Law, took precedence of the letter. He taxes them with culpable and disgraceful, if not wilful, ignorance of such a plain Scripture as "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." If, then, the necessity of David and his men prevailed over the letter of the Law; if the sabbath services of the priests made sabbath labour to some extent a duty; and if the claim of mercy be prior to and higher than that of sacrifice, our Lord claims exemption for his hungry disciples from the unbending rigour of the Law, or rather from the harsh, superstitious misinterpretation of it by those cold, heartless, cavilling, censorious Pharisees. VIII. THE SABBATH DESIGNED TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO MAN. Our Lord proceeds to take higher ground. The sabbath was made for the sake of man, Gentile as well as Jew; it originated for his benefit; it is only the means to an end, and man's interests are that end; it owes its existence to man, and has the reason of its existence in man. It is a memorial of his creation, a remembrancer of his redemption, and a foretaste as well as pledge of his future and everlasting rest. It is most valuable in its essential nature and right use; but if the circumstantial come into collision with the essential, or the ceremonial conflict with the moral, in either case the former, in the very nature of things, is bound to give place. IX. THE SON OF MAN'S LORDSHIP WITH RESPECT TO THE SABBATH. The Son of man here mentioned is, in spite of all rationalistic quibbling, the Saviour, and he is Lord of the sabbath. In St. Mark and St. Luke καὶ stands before "sabbath;" it is likewise inserted in St. Matthew by some, but excluded by others. It may mean even or also. In the first of these two significations it implies that much as they valued the ordinance of the sabbath above all the other commandments of the Decalogue, and superstitious as was the veneration with which they regarded it, the Son of man was Lord even of the sabbath; and so he could make it elastic as the exigencies of any particular case might require; he could modify it according to any special emergency; he could determine the mode of its observance between the two limits of man's benefit on the one hand, and the Law's behest on the other. But if we take the meaning of the copulative to be also, then it signifies that, amid and in addition to his other lordships, the Son of man possesses this also - that he is Lord of the sabbath day. He is Lord of angels, for they worship him; he is the Lord from heaven, and all its hosts do acknowledge him; he is Lord of earth, for by him it was made, and through him it is upheld; he is the Lord of all creation, for he is the firstborn of every creature, that in all things he should have the pre-eminence; "he is Lord also of the sabbath." He vindicates his law from the lax observance of the worldling or pleasure-seeker on the one hand, and from the narrowness of Pharisaic superstition on the other. He manifests its true nature for the rest and refreshment - the physical, mental, moral, and spiritual blessing of mankind. X. THE PERPETUAL OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. In proof of its perpetual obligation we may refer to its Divine appointment, so long prior to the division of Adam's family into the two great sections of Jew and Gentile - before the call of Abram and the existence of the Jewish nation; before the promulgation of the Law from Sinai and the establishment of the Jewish polity. We may trace the proof of its observance in the division of time into weeks among almost all nations and from the remotest antiquity; in certain incidental notices afforded by the history of the period between creation and the publishing of the Law; in the miraculous supply of a double portion of manna, which, even before the latter event, Israel received on the sixth day as a provision for the seventh; in the note of memory prefixed, implying at once its appointment and observance before the giving of the Law, and intimating not a new enactment merely national in its range, but the republication to a particular nation of an old one, that from the beginning had been binding on all. The latitude of its extent to the Gentile stranger, as well as to the Jew, may be argued from the terms of the command itself, "Nor the stranger that is within thy gates." Some importance, too, may be attached to its central position in the Decalogue, linking together the duties we owe our Father in heaven, and those which we owe our brother man on earth; while it blends, moreover, the joint memorials of creation and Calvary, and combines at the same time the creature's comfort and the Creator's glory in the words, "To you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord." We must have in recollection, besides, that it was written, as well as the other precepts of the moral law, by the finger of God on the stone tablet, in token, it would seem, of its durability. Further, we may observe the tense of the verb used in the last verse of this chapter, viz. "the Son of man is" - that is, continues - "Lord of the sabbath;" consequently Lord, not of an obsolete or decaying ordinance, but of a present, ever-abiding institution. Thus, indeed, it appears that "the sabbath was made for man," for the species, coeval and coextensive with the race - "for man," as has been well observed, "from the beginning; for man till the end; for man generally, at all times, in all countries, and under all circumstances." And when, we may ask, or where, or how was this original sabbath law either repealed or relaxed? - J.J.G. Parallel Verses KJV: And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. |
    |