صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

(only) will accuse you to the Father; there is one that acouses you, even Moses, in whom 'ye trust. 46. -For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me: had you believed the writings of Moses, which are daily read in your synagogues, you would have believed me; for these writings describe me, not by types and figures only, but by particular and direct prophecies. See Gen. xii. 3. xxii. 18. xlix. 10. Deut. xviii. 15. 47. But if yje believe not his writing's, howu shall ye believe mai words? Since you do not believe the testimouy of your own lawgiver, I have no reason to be surprized that you do not credit me upon my own testimony. Thus Jesus asserted his own personal dignity, as the Son of God, and Judge of the world ; at the same time he proposed the evidencés of his mission from God, with such strength of reason, perspicuity and brevity, as nothing can equal. " XLVI. After the second Passover the disciples pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath, in some field nigh to Jerusalem. Mat, xii. 1,48. Mark ii. 23,--28. Luke vi. 1,-5.

Upon the first second-day Sabbath, that is, the ordinary Sabbath happening in the passover week, probably the 'very Sabbath that was honoured with the cure of the paralytic who lay in Bethesda, Jesus and his disciples passed through the corn fields near Jerusalem, attended by some of the Pharisees, whose curiosity prompted them to mix vith the crowd on this occasion, in expectation of seeing more miracles. These no doubt they proposed to examine with the greatest'accuracy, as well as to watch Jesus while he performed them, that they might detect what

ever, as they vainly imagined, was false in ihem. Or if no mi., racle was performed, they hoped to find him behaving on the

Sabbath, in a manner inconsistent with the holy character which he assumed. Accordingly, they first found fault with his disciples; for on seing them pluck the ears of corn, and eat as they walked, they reproved them, and complained of them to their Master; not for having taken what they had no right to, the law authorising them to do this, Deut. xxiii. 25. but for having broken the Sabbath by servile work, such as they suppo3ed plucking and rubbing the ears to be. Luke vi. 1. And it came to pass on * the second Sabbath after the first, that he went

'through . * Ver. 1. The second sabbath after the first.] Commentators are greatly ac a loss to understand what Luke means by the second sabbath after the first, or outw deutspot PWTC). Some think the proper translation of his words are, the first second-day satbatb, understanding thereby the ordinary sabbath which happened in the passover week, and assigning the following reason of its name. The law enjoined, that on the second day of the passover week, they should offer the sheal of the fust-fruits, Lev. xxiii, 1o, 11. But in case of a backward season, they placed an intercalary month between the

last

through the corn fields :- (Matt. At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn. Mark, And it came to pass that ke went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day,) and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. 2. And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days ! The Phari. . . .

. . . . sees

last morth Adar, and the first month Abib, answering to our March, and caled it Veadar, or the second Adar. From the second day of the passover week, on which the first slreaf was offered with prayers for a blessing cu the beginning harvest, they counted seven weeks to Pentecosty (Lev. XX 15,6.) called for that reason the feyst of weeks (Deut. xvi. o.) and te tcast of harves: (Exod. xrui. Tó.) The day on which they oficred the first barley-sheaf, and from which they counted the 6Von weeks of harvest, to the feast of Pentecost, being the second day of the pissuvir week, it is supposed that the or linary sabbaths happening in these weeks, carried in their name a memorial of the term from whence they were computed. Thus the first of them was.called crnTorderrigoTeStov. the first second day sabb tb, or the first sabbath after the sucoud day of unleavened bread ; the second, - SCATO dsutigodgutegov, the second second-day sabbutia: the third, osebater devtsporeitov, the third second-dar sabbath, and so of the rest till the seventh. Had the abettors of this interpretation, viz. Jos. Scaliger, 15.120 Casaubon, Lightfoot, Lamy, Whitby, Doddridge, &c produced any other instance of the words 6*60#TOY deutspot puto, having the meaning they af fix to it, an end would have been put to all disputes about the matter, But for want of this, Grotius, Wolizogenius, Brennius, Dodwel, &c. have adopted another explication equally unsupported; for they can produce no passage of ancient writing, in which σακοκτον πρωτοπρωτον δευτεροπροTov, tritotentov, &c. signify the first, second, third, &c. prime, chief, or high sabbaths, sabbaths observed with uncommon solemnity, and of which they suppose there were three in the year; one at the Passover, Inother ar Pentecast, and a third at the feast of Tabernacles. According to Grotius, therefore, the first second-day sabbath (MMOLTO' DeoTigot gostov) was that which happened at Pentecost. But his opinion is plainly confuted by the cireumstances of the history. Pentecost, being the feast of harvest, was solemnized after the harvest was wholly over, for which reason there could be no fields unreaped then, where the disciples could pluck the ears in passing. Cleopenburgh, Sim. Petit, Le Moine, R land, and others, are of opinion, that as the civil year of the Jews began with the month Tizri, its first sabbath might be called not only the first sabbath of the year, but the first chief sabhath, to distinguish it from the sabbath preceding the new moon of Nisan, which they think was called sabbntum secundo priinum, the second chief sabbath, because the ecclesiastical year began with that month, Exod xii. 2.- Epiphanius, Beza, Sir Isaac Newton on prophecy, pag. 154. have advanced another interpretation of the passage. They say that this FusionToy deutepozewtoy was the second holy convocation in the passover week, that is to say, the last day of the feast, the first holy convocation being the day after the passover solemnity itself. Luther, Surenhusius, Wolf, &c think it was the first holy convocation, called the great sabbath, Qohn xix. 31 ) on account of the extraordinary solemnity with which it Was observed. Mr Doddridge supports Scaliger's opinion, and confutes those of Epiphanius and Luther by the following argument. The law of the sanctification of the two holy convocations, with which the feast of unleavened bread began and ended, allowed such ser vile work to be done

on

risees on seeing the disciples do what they supposed a profanation of the Sabbath, thought themselves warranted to rebuke them publicly. And because the offence was great, they represented it to their Master, that he likewise might reprove them for it: or if he did not, that he might appear to all as one who encouraged his disciples to break the Sabbath, or at least who had neglected to impress them with a due reverence for that holy day. Mark ii. 24. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they (Matt. thy disciples) on 'the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? This accusation, therefore, though it seemed to be le. velled immediately against the disciples, was really intended against Jesus himself. But he easily repelled it, by putting the Pharisees in mind of David, who, though a prophet as well as a king, in a case of necessity'ate the sacred shew-bread contrary to the law, Lev. xxiv. 9. and of the priests in the temple, who killed the sacrifices on the Sabbath day; and by desiring them to consider a passage in Hosea, where God declares that he has greater pleasure in mercy than in sacrifice;' and by explaining unto them the end of the Sabbath itself, which was instituted for the benefit, and not for the detriment of mankind. He began with David's action in the matter of the shew-bread, which the high-priest himself was accessary to, which the Scriptures record with no mark of disapprobation, and which it seems the doctors never had condemned, and for that reason was a proper vindication of the disciples in the like circumstances. Mark ii. 25. And he said unto them, have ye never read (Luke, so much as this) what David did, when he had need and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26. How he went into the house of God * in the days of Abiathar the high-priest,

and

on them as was necessary for preparing victuals, Exod. xii. 16. Wherefore, had the disciples been blamed for plucking the ears on any of these days, the nature of their sanctification affording an easy vindication of that action, Jesus would not have failed to urge it.-Upon the whole, though the opinion first mentioned seems most agreeable to truth, it may be observed that according to all the interpretations of the passage, this first second day sabbath, on which the disciples plucked the ears of corn, happened near some pssover; for the most unfavourable supposition, namely, that which Grotius has offered, makes it the sabbath of Pentecost, which was but fifty days atier the Passover.

* Ver. 26. In the days of Abiathar the high priest.] In the history, the priest from whom David received the shew-bread is called Animelech; and it is generally agreed chat he was the high priest, because Doeg accused him of inquiring of the Lord for David, (1 Sam, xxii. 10.) a thing which none but the high priest having on the ephod, could do. If that be true, Ahimelech must have been the high priest, because he himself confessed that he had often inquired of the Lord formerly without blame, ver. Is, Accordingly Josephus calls him the high priest several times.

But to make this matter easy, Haminon supposes that ini AE.atapos, the phrase in Mark, should be translated, before the days of Abia:bar, as

[ocr errors]

and did eat the * shew-bread, which is not lawful to eat, (Matth. which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests), but for the priests, (Luke, alone) and gave also to them which were with him? The house of God, into which David went for the shew-bread, was not the tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither. But it was

the

BZ1 usteineris, Mart. i. u. seems to signify before the captivity. Lightfout thirks it should be translated, in the days of Abiaibar the son of the high priest, as T8 Hno signifies the son of Heli, Luke iji, 23. Whitby is of opinion that arxiegaus in this passage signifies a chief priest, an eminent man of the order, which sense it must be acknowledged the word has often in scrin. ture. Beza suspects the genuineness of the reading. Yet the copy from which the Syriac was taken, reads Abiathar, as all the copies at present d. Grotius supposes, that Abiathar being a more celebrated person than liis father, is mentioned rather than him. Perhaps Abiathar was present when David came, whose request he might a lvise his father to grant. If 50, it was abundantly proper to mention him in this affair. He is called Abiathar the high priest, though when David applied to him he did not possags that dignity, it being common to denominate people in every part of their life, by such eminent offices as they have held in any part there. mf. Perhaps it may illustrate the matter to observe, that shimelech, the father of Abiathar, was not slain with the priests of Nob. For though Saul threatened him and all his father's house with death, 1 Sam. xxij. ib. it is not said he was killed. We are only told that Doeg fell upon the priests, and slew fourscore and five of them. Besides, had himelech been slain, the high priesthood would have been taken from his family, which it was not; for Solomon's deposition of Abiathar, Ahimelech's son, is de. clared to have been an accomplishment of the word of the lord concerning the house of Eli. Till this period, therefore, Eli's descendents en jered the high priesthood. See the note on the words Annas and Caiaphas. berthe high priests, Luke iii. i. $14. But, which puts the matter beyond doubt, Animelech is said to have been high priest in David's reign, 1 Chron xviii: 16. Ahimelech's father was called Abiathar, i Chr. xviii. 16. and was high priest, being alive when David received the shew-bread. So our Lord says expressly. Perhaps being old he was incapable of officating, which was the reason that his eldest son Alimelech supplied his pare, and inquired of the Lord for David. It is true, in the history of this affair, Ahimelech is called the son of Ahitub, 1 Sam. xxii. 20. but every where else he is called the son of Abiathar. Either therefore

thor days; or there is an error of his name in the text of Samuel, which might arise from the history's mentioning his contemporary Ahitub the father of Zadok of the line of Eleazar, or from some other cause unknown to us. And what has increased the difficulty of this affair is, that Ahimelech the son of Abiathar had a son named Abiathar, who after the slaughter at Nob fied to David, became his companion, and after his father Ahi. telech's death was made high priest, in which office he continued till he was deposed by Solomon for conspiring with Ad njah, as we are told i Kings ij. $0,--53.

Ver. 26 Sbew-bread ) In the R brew this is called the bread of faces. Calmat after the Jewish writers observes, that as the tabernacle first, and the temple afterwards, was God's palace and place of residence, so the weekly services of bread, and wine, and salt, were intended to d note his habitation among them, as if he had been an earthly prince for whom such provision was made.

the house of the high-priest, situated beside the court of the tabernacie, and called the house of God on that account. Thus the apartment in which the high-priest Eli and his servant Samuel slept, is called the house of the Lord, I Sam. ii. 15.-Mat. xi. 5. Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless? He not mean that these words are to be found in the law, but that they might read in the law, how that the priests were obliged on the sabbath davs, to perform such servile work in the temple, as considered separately from the end of it, was a profanation of the sibbach, and yet were guiltless, because it was necessary to the public worship, on account of which the sabbath was instituted. From Numb. xxviii. 9. it appears, that besides the continual burnt-offering, the priests were obliged on the sabbaths to sacrifice two lambs extraordinary, by which their servile work was that day double of what it was on the other days of the week. This, though really no profan. tion of the sabbath, might according to the common notion of the Jews be so termed ; and therefore in speaking of it our Lord calls it 80. 6. But I say unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple. If you reply that the priests were not culpable in those actions, because they were undertaken for the temple-seia vice, I acknowledge it ; but at the same time I must observe, that if the temple with its service is of such importance as to merit a particular dispensation from the law of the sabbath, I and my disciples, whose business of promoting the salvation of men is a matter of more importance, may on that account with more reason take the same liberty in a case of the like necessity, According to this interpretation, the reading fleucov, a greater work, instead of parlwr, a greater person, which is authorized by so many MSS. will have a peculiar elegance. There is here a much more noble work carrying on than the temple-service. Or the common reading may be retained thus: if the servile work done in the temple on the sabbath is not reckoned an offence, because it is undertaken on account of the temple-worship, the rubbing of the ears for which you blame my disciples cannot be any, seeing they do it in order to support their life, while they are employed in the service of one who is greater than the temple. For his human nature was a much more august temple, in respect of the essential inhabitation of the divinity than ihac at Jerusalem. Hence he himself called his body a temple at the first passover, John ii. 21. 7. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. I deliglot in mercy (so feast signifies, Mat. xxvii. 43.) more than in sacrifice, for this is the Hebrew form of comparison. Besides, it is not to be supposed that God would say to the Jews, he had no pleasure in sacrifice, which was

bis

« السابقةمتابعة »