speak of the circumstance that such advanced teaching on the part of Christ, and such advanced knowledge on the part of His disciples, indicate a later period, our Lord did not call His twelve Apostles till long after the Feast of Pentecost, viz. after His return from the so-called 'Unknown Feast,' [a St. John v.] which, as shown in another place, [3 Comp. Appendix XV.] must have been either that of 'Wood-Gathering,' in the end of the summer, or else New Year's Day, in the beginning of autumn. Thus, as by 'the disciples' we must in this connection understand, in the first place, 'the Apostles,' the event could not have occurred between the first Passover and Pentecost of the Lord's Ministry.
The same result is reached by another process of reasoning. After the first Passover [b St. John ii. 13.] our Lord, with such of His disciples as had then gathered to Him, tarried for some time, no doubt for several weeks, in Judaea, [c St. John iii. 22; v. 1-3.] The wheat was ripe for harvesting, when he passed through Samaria, [a St. John iv. 35.] And, on His return to Galilee, His disciples seem to have gone back to their homes and occupations, since it was some time afterwards when even His most intimate disciples, Peter, Andrew, James, and John, were called a second time, [b St. Matt. iv. 18-22.] Chronologically, therefore, there is no room for this event between the first Passover and Pentecost. [1 Few would be disposed to place St. Matt. xii. before St. Matt, iv.] Lastly, we have here to bear in mind, that, on His first appearance in Galilee, the Pharisees had not yet taken up this position of determined hostility to Him. On the other hand, all agrees with the circumstance, that the active hostility of the Pharisees and Christ's separation from the ordinances of the Synagogue commenced with His visit to Jerusalem in the early autumn of that year, [c St. John 14.] If, therefore, we have to place the plucking of the ears of corn after the Feast recorded in St. John v., as can scarcely be doubted, it must have taken place, not between the first, but between the Second Passover and Pentecost of Christ's Public Ministry.
Another point deserves notice. The different 'setting' (chronologically speaking) in which the three Gospels present the event about to be related, illustrates that the object of the Evangelists
was to present the events in the History of the Christ in their succession, not of time, but of bearing upon final results. This, because they do not attempt a Biography of Jesus, which, from their point of view, would have been almost blasphemy, but a History of the Kingdom which He brought; and because they write it, so to speak, not by adjectives (expressive of qualities), nor adverbially, [2 Adverbs answer to the questions, How, When, Why, Where.] but by substantives. Lastly, it will be noted that the three Evangelists relate the event about to be considered (as so many others), not, indeed, with variations, [3 Meyer insists that the or more correctly, (St. Mark ii. 23) should be translated literally, that the disciples began to make a way by plucking the ears of corn. Accordingly, he maintains, that there is an essential difference between the account of St. Mark and those of the two other Evangelists, who attribute the plucking of the ears to hunger. Canon Cook (Speaker's Commentary, New Testament i. p. 216) has to my mind, conclusively shown the untenableness of Meyer's contention. He compares the expression of St. Mark to the Latin 'iter facere.' I would suggest the French 'chemin faisant.' Godet points out the absurdity of plucking up ears in order to make a way through the corn.] but with differences of detail, showing the independence of their narratives, which, as we shall see, really supplement each other.
We are now in a position to examine the narrative itself. It was on the Sabbath after the Second Paschal Day that Christ and His disciples passed [4 In St. Mark also the better reading is .], probably by a field-path, through cornfields, when His disciples, being hungry, [a St. Matthew.] as they went, [b St. Mark.] plucked ears of corn and ate them, having rubbed off the husks in their hands, [c St. Luke.] On any ordinary day this would have been lawful, [d Deut xxiii 25.] but on the Sabbath it involved, according to Rabbinic statutes, at least two sins. For, according to the Talmud, what was really one labour, would, if made up of several acts, each of them forbidden, amount to several acts of labour, each involving sin, punishment, and a sin-offering, [e Shabb. 70 a.] [1 Thus (Shabb. 74 b, lines 12, 11 from bottom), if a person were to pull out a feather from the wing of a bird, cut off the top, and then pluck off the fluff below it would involve three labours and three sin-offerings.] This so-called 'division' of labour applied only to infringement of the Sabbath-rest, not of that of feast-days, [f Mace. 21 b.] Now in this case there were at least two such acts involved: that of plucking the ears of corn, ranged under the sin of reaping, and that of rubbing them, which might be ranged under sifting in a sieve, threshing, sifting out fruit, grinding, or fanning. The following Talmudic passage bears on this: 'In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered as sifting; if she rubs the heads of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she bruises the ears, it is grinding; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing.' [g Jer. Shabb. p. 10 a, lines 28 to 26 from bottom.] One instance will suffice to show the externalism of all these ordinances. If a man wished to move a sheaf on his field, which of course implied labour, he had only to lay upon it a spoon that was in his common use, when, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! [h Shabb. 142 b, line 6 from bottom.] And yet it was forbidden to stop with a little wax the hole in a cask by which the fluid was running out, [i Shabb. 146 a.] or to wipe a wound!
Holding views like these, the Pharisees, who witnessed the conduct of the disciples, would naturally harshly condemn, what they must have regarded as gross desecration of the Sabbath. Yet it was clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law. Not only to show them their error, but to lay down principles which would for ever apply to this difficult question, was the object of Christ's reply. Unlike the others of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath Law has in it two elements; the moral and the ceremonial: the eternal, and that which is subject to time and place; the
inward and spiritual, and the outward (the one as the mode of realizing the other). In their distinction and separation lies the difficulty of the subject. In its spiritual and eternal element, the Sabbath Law embodied the two thoughts of rest for worship, and worship which pointed to rest. The keeping of the seventh day, and the Jewish mode of its observance, were the temporal and outward form in which these eternal principles were presented. Even Rabbinism, in some measure, perceived this. It was a principle, that danger to life superseded the Sabbath Law, [1 But only where the life of an Israelite, not of a heathen or Samaritan, was in danger (Yoma 84 b).] and indeed all other obligations. [2 Maimonides, Hilkh. Shabb. ii. 1 (Yad haCh. vol. i. part iii. p. 141 a): 'The Sabbath is set aside on account of danger to life, as all other ordinances'.] Among the curious Scriptural and other arguments by which this principle was supported, that which probably would most appeal to common sense was derived from Lev. xviii. 5. It was argued, that a man was to keep the commandments that he might live, certainly not, that by so doing he might die. [a Jer. Shabb. xiv. 4, pp. 14 d, 15 a.] In other words, the outward mode of observation was subordinate to the object of the observance. Yet this other and kindred principle did Rabbinism lay down, that every positive commandment superseded the Sabbath-rest. This was the ultimate vindication of work in the Temple, although certainly not its explanation. Lastly, we should in this connection, include this important canon, laid down by the Rabbis: 'a single Rabbinic prohibition is not to be heeded, where a graver matter is in question.' [b Jer. Shabb. xvi. 1.]
All these points must be kept in view for the proper understanding of the words of Christ to the Scribes. For, while going far beyond the times and notions of His questioners, His reasoning must have been within their comprehension. Hence the first argument of our Lord, as recorded by all the Synoptists, was taken from Biblical History. When, on his flight from Saul, David had, 'when an hungered,' eaten of the shewbread, and given it to his followers, [3 According to 1 Sam. xxii. 9 Ahimelech (or Ahijah, 1 Sam. xiv. 3) was the high Priest. We infer, that Abiathar was conjoined with his father in the priesthood. Comp. the 'Bible-History,' vol. iv. p. 111.] although, by the letter of the Levitical Law, [c Lev. xxiv 5-9.] it was only to be eaten by the priests, Jewish tradition vindicated his conduct on the plea that 'danger to life superseded the Sabbath-Law, and hence, all laws connected with it, [4 The question discussed in the Talmud is, whether, supposing an ordinary Israelite discharged priestly functions on the Sabbath in the temple, it would involve two sins: unlawful service and Sabbath-desecration; or only one sin, unlawful service.] while, to show David's zeal for the Sabbath-Law, the legend was added, that he had reproved the priests of Nob, who had been baking the shewbread on the Sabbath, [d Yalkut ii. par. 130, p. 18 d.] To the first argument of Christ, St. Matthew adds this as His second, that the priests, in their services in the Temple, necessarily broke the Sabbath-Law without thereby incurring guilt. It is curious, that the Talmud discusses this very point, and that, by way of illustration, it introduces an argument from Lev. xxii. 10: 'There shall no stranger eat of things consecrated.' This, of course, embodies the principle underlying the prohibition of the shewbread to all who were not priests, [a Jer. Shabb. ii. 5, p. 5 a.] Without entering further on it, the discussion at least shows, that the Rabbis were by no means clear on the rationale of Sabbath-work in the Temple.
In truth, the reason why David was blameless in eating the shewbread was the same as that which made the Sabbath-labour of the priests lawful. The Sabbath-Law was not one merely of rest, but of rest for worship. The Service of the Lord was the object in view. The priests worked on the Sabbath, because this service was the object of the Sabbath; and David was allowed to eat of the shewbread, not because there was danger to life from
