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 1871 μstoimedios, Matt. i. 11. seems to signify before the captivity. Lightfoot thinks it should be translated, in the days of Abiathar the son of the high priest, as 8 Ha, signifies the son of Heli, Luke iii, 23. Whitby is of opinion that aggius in this passage signifies a chief priest, an eminent man of the order, which sense it must be acknowledged the word has often in scripture. Beza suspects the genuineness of the reading. Yet the copy from which the Syriac was taken, reads Abiathar, as all the copies at present do. Grotius supposes, that Abiathar being a more celebrated person than his father, is mentioned rather than him. Perhaps Abiathar was present when David came, whose request he might advise his father to grant. If so, 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 possess 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 thereof. Perhaps it may illustrate the matter to observe, that Ahimelech, 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. xxii. 16. 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 Ahimelech 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 declared to have been an accomplishment of the word of the I ord concerning the house of Eli. Till this period, therefore, Eli's descendents enjoved the high priesthood. See the note on the words Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, Luke iii. 1.14. But, which puts the matter beyond doubt, Ahimelech is said to have been high priest in David's reign, 1 Chron xviii: 16. Ahimelech's father was called Abiathar, 1 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 offi dating, which was the reason that his eldest son Ahimelech supplied his place, 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 Either therefore every where else he is called the son of Abiathar. Ahimelech's father had two names, which was no uncommon thing in those 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 melech's death was made high priest, in which office he continued till he was deposed by Solomon for conspiring with Adonjah, as we are told 1 Kings ii. 50-53 •, Ver. 26 Shew-bread] In the 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 denote his habitation among them, as if he had been an earthly prince for whom such provision was made. de the house of the high-priest, situated beside the court of the tabernacle, 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, 1 Sam. iii. 15.-Mat. xii. 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 days, to perform such servile work in the temple, as considered separately from the end of it, was a profanation of the sabbath, 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 profanation 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 $0. 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-service, 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 uzov, a greater work, instead of alwr, 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 that 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 delight in mercy (so 9 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 his own institution. Thus our Lord' plainly proved it to be God's will, that works of mercy should not be left undone, though attended with the violation of the most sacred ceremonial institutions. Mark ii. 27. And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath the sabbath was contrived for the benefit and relief of man, being instituted in commemoration of the creation of the world finished in six days, and to perpetuate unto latest ages the knowledge of this grand truth, that the world was made by God, in opposition both to atheism and idolatry, the sins which mankind have ever been apt to run into. It was instituted also that men abstaining from all sorts of labour, but such as are necessary to the exercises of piety and charity, might have leisure for meditating on the works of crea tion, wherein the perfections of God are fairly delineated; and that by these meditations they might acquire, not only the knowledge of God, but a relish of spiritual and divine pleasures, flowing from the contemplation of God's attributes, from the exer- › cise of the love of God, and from obedience to his command- ↑ ments. It is thus that men are prepared for entering into the heavenly rest, of which the earthly sabbath is an emblem. To conclude, among the Israelites, the sabbath was appointed to keep up the remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt, and for the comfort of their slaves and beasts, humanity to both being especially incumbent upon a people, who had once groaned under the heaviest bondage. From all which it is evident, that to bur den men, much more to hurt them, through the observation of the sabbath, which has no intrinsic excellency in itself, is to acr quite contrary to the design of God in appointing it. Mark ii. 28. Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath; since the sabbath was instituted for the benefit of man, the observation of it in cases of necessity may be dispensed with by any man. whatsoever, but especially by me who am lawgiver of the Jewish commonwealth, and can make what alterations in its institutions I think fit. This argument, drawn from the considerationof his own dignity, our Lord largely insisted on, when he was prosecuted for a pretended profanation of the sabbath, by the cure which he performed at Bethesda, John v. 17,-30. § 45 *. * For the order observed by Mark and Luke in this part of the history, see § 14.-Jesus was often blamed by the Pharisees as having broken the abbath, particularly John v 16. § 5. Luke vi. 2. § 46 Matth. xii. IC. § 47. John ix. 14. § 78. Luke xiii. 14. § 90. Luke xiv. 2. § 92. XLVII. A few days after the second passover, a man that had his hand withered, is cured in a synagogue near Jerusalem. After which Jesus goes away to Galilee. Matth. xii. 9,-21. Mark iii. 1,-12. Luke vi. 6,-11. AT this time Jesus continued a while about Jerusalem, teaching not only the inhabitants of that city and of the neighbourVOL. II. G ing ing villages, but the people who had come from all quarters to the feast, and who, in all probability, tarried on this occasion longer than usual, in order to hear the sermons and see the miracles of a prophet, concerning whom they had heard such astonishing reports. We may therefore suppose, that during his abode in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, our Lord was constantly attended by great multitudes; and consequently, that every sermon he preached had many hearers, and every miracle he performed many witnessses. In examining the following passage of the history, these observations deserve attention. For we are told that on another sabbath, perhaps the sabbath immediately following the first second-day sabbath mentioned in the preceding section, Jesus entered into a synagogue near Jerusalem, and taught the people. Luke, who alone mentions our Lord's teaching on this occasion, has not told us what the subject of this sermon was. He only observes, that there was in the synagogue a person whose right hand was withered, and gives an account of the miracle which Jesus so kindly performed for the recovery thereof. Luke vi. 6. And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the (Matt. their) synagogue and taught, and there was a man (Mark, there) whose right hand was withered. His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from Mark iii. 5. Matthew seems to say this miracle happened immediately after the transaction recorded in the preceding section. Matth. xii. 9. And when he was departed thence, he avent into their synagogue, &c. Nevertheless, the transition which he makes use of, does not necessarily imply this. See Prelim. Observ. iii. On this occasion, there were present scribes and Pharisees, persons of the greatest character and learning, who had either mixed with the crowd that followed Jesus, or were in the synagogue before he came. These men, ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said or did, with an intention to find some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Wherefore, when they saw Jesus, after he had ended his sermon, fix his eyes on the man whose right hand was withered, they made no doubt but he would essay to cure him, and resolved to charge him directly with the sin, for which they blamed the disciples the sabbath before, hoping at least to raise prejudices in the minds of the peoole against him. Luke vi. 7. And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accu➡ sation against him. So gross was their hypocrisy, that they resolved to raise an outcry against him, if on the sabbath he should give a lame man the use of his hand, while they themselves were profaning it by an action which would have polluted any day; were seeking an opportunity to murder one who never had done them any harm, but a great deal of good. The evangelist ob serves that the malicious designs of the Pharisees were not hid from Jesus. We may therefore, in this instance, see the greatness of the courage of our blessed Lord, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. 8. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to shew himself to the whole congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to its former dimensions and activity in an instant. And he arose and stood forth. Matt. xii. 10. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the subbath days? that they might accuse him. When the Pharisees saw Jesus going to perform the cure, they put this question to him, by which they declared in the strongest terms their opinion. of its unlawfulness. But in so doing, they had no intention to prevent the action, which they knew he was resolved upon, but to render him odious to the common people, expecting that he would openly declare such things lawful, in opposition to the definitions of the doctors, who had all determined that to perform cures on the sabbath, was a violation of the holy rest. Or if he should give no answer to their question, as it applied an affirmation of the unlawfulness of what he was about to attempt, they thought it would render him inexcusable, and give the better co lour to their accusation. Luke vi. 9. Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing, Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good er to do evil? to save life or to destroy it? (Mark, to save life or to kill?) That he might expose the malice and superstition of the Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own mind, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbaths than to do evil, to save life than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him on the sabbath to save mens lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. This was a severe but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet the Pharisees pretending not to understand his meaning, made him no answer, Mark iii. 4. But they held their peace. Wherefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay. Matth. xii. 11. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12. How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. If the regard you have for the life of your cattle leads you to do servile work on the sabbath for the preservation of a single sheep, charity should much rather induce you to labour |