another, and did not seek the glory that cometh from God. With all their pretentions of piety, with all their zeal for the Sabbath, they were essentially worldly and sensual, and they had no real faith in God. They were boasting of Moses, and yet the law of Moses was their accuser. They were zealous for the letter of the law, but they had lost its spirit. It was their essential worldliness that was blinding their eyes and making them enemies of Christ even while they professed to have great zeal for God's law.

In this brief discourse we find Jesus Christ claiming equality with God, not only as a son of God, but as the Son of God. He made his claims so clear and definite that the Jews sought even then to kill him because he had made himself equal with God. He had revealed to Nicodemus the necessity for regeneration in order to enter into the kingdom of God, and had told him of God's love in sending forth his Son to save men; to the woman of Samaria he had revealed himself as the Messiah or the Christ; to the people of Nazareth he had declared himself the Lord's anointed, spoken of by Isaiah, but now, more definitely than ever before, he declares to the Jews, probably in the temple, that he is the divine Son of God, co-equal with the Father. His wondrous words, following the exercise of his divine power, so impress the multitude that they permit him to return to Galilee.

XXII

CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE SABBATH

Luke 6: 1. "And it came to pass on a Sabbath, that he was going through the cornfields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands."

Luke 6:6. "And it came to pass on another Sabbath that he entered into the synagogue and taught and there was a man there and his right hand was withered."

(Matthew 12: 1-21; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-12.)

T

HE account given of these two events in the sacred Scriptures indicates that the Sabbath had become the ecclesiastical battle-field, and it seemed to be the one test of Jewish orthodoxy that was constantly coming to the front.

The first event is recorded by the first three evangelists, but they give no definite information as to time or place. The fourth evangelist, having reported our Lord's discourse growing out of the healing of a lame man at Bethesda on the Sabbath day, says, "After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias." Mark, having given an account of the disciples plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath, says, "Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and from Judea, and from Jerusalem and from Idumea, and beyond Jordan and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came unto him." If, as we have assumed, this feast at Jerusalem, of which John speaks, was the feast of the passover, it

seems very probable that this plucking of the ears of corn, recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the healing of a withered hand on another Sabbath day, took place as Jesus was returning from the feast at Jerusalem to his home by the Sea of Galilee. His own disciples, though not mentioned as being with him at Bethesda, would probably be returning with him from the passover, and there would be other Jews from the outlying districts of Judea and from Idumea, going to their homes by the same route. It is probable, also, that the scribes and Pharisees, who had been offended at his teaching at Jerusalem, desiring to find out more about him, might follow or accompany him on his homeward journey. It is possible, too, that the inhabitants from Tyre and Sidon, who were deeply interested in his words and works, might return to their homes by this route in order to be with him on their journey. This would account for his having about him such a multitude as Mark describes.

The plucking of the ears of corn probably occurred within the limits of Judea on the first Sabbath after he left Jerusalem. The evangelist tells us "he was going on the Sabbath day through the corn fields." It seems evident that he was not traveling more than a Sabbath day's journey, for, had he done so, this would have given rise to another complaint. Jesus was not accused of violating the Sabbath himself, but his disciples took the ears of corn, or the heads of ripe wheat, and, rubbing them in their hands, separated the wheat from the chaff and ate the wheat to satisfy their hunger.

If any question should arise as to the honesty of the disciples satisfying their hunger from the fields owned by others, it is answered from the law of Moses as it says, "When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine

hand, but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn" (Deut. 23:25). This right being clearly defined and recognized by the Mosaic law, the only offense charged was against the law of the Sabbath. This law forbade all kinds of work which included reaping and threshing, and the rabbis had decided that plucking was reaping, and that rubbing was threshing.

The action of the disciples seemed to the Pharisees a serious violation of the law of the Sababth. They were not satisfied with rebuking the disciples, but they came to the Master and said, "Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?" It is possible that they were moved to say this by the hope that Jesus would forbid the desecration of the Sabbath and thus relieve their consciences, but the whole narrative indicates that they did not care so much for the Sabbath, after all, as they cared to have Jesus commit himself as a Sabbath breaker. Their conduct afterwards indicates that their zeal for the Sabbath was a compound of malice and pride of opinion, rather than real piety and zeal for God.

Had Jesus Christ been only a worldly-wise and politic man, knowing as he did the extreme perjudice of the Jews, he might have constrained his disciples to endure hunger and not give offence or cause for complaint. It was a small matter, and the disciples could have easily afforded to suffer hunger and give up their liberty in order to prevent trouble. A worldly-wise man might have said to the disciples "These scribes and Pharisees are narrow and prejudiced, but the exercise of your liberty will make trouble." An astute political leader could have said this to the disciples, and could then have explained to the Jews that violation of their law of the Sabbath would not occur again. This kind of wisdom is sometimes called tact, but it has in it an element of de

ceit that never was found in the words and acts of Jesus Christ, the perfect man. He never secured peace by the sacrifice of principle, or by introducing any element of deceit. On this occasion he frankly, boldly defended the act of his disciples. He said to the Pharisees just what he would have said about them. He called attention to what David, their great ancestor, did when he was hungry -how he did eat the shew bread which it was not lawful to eat save for the priests. Then he proclaimed the great fact that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, and added, "The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

In saying this, Jesus assumed full responsibility for what had been done by his disciples on the Sabbath. He saw how the scribes and Pharisees had made the Sabbath a burden and he sought to correct their error. He was willing to fulfill all righteousness, but he was not willing, even by silence, to give assent to the enslaving of God's people by perverting and misapplying God's law. He proceeded, also, to show to the Pharisees that this is not a new revelation, as he says, "have ye not read in the law, how that, on the Sabbath day, the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?" Then, having called attention to the temple services, he says, "One greater than the temple is here."... ..."For the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath."

In all this it is evident that Jesus does not abrogate nor change the law of the Sabbath. He only condemns that false interpretation of the law that had changed a most beneficent friend of real liberty into heavy chains of slavery. He declares that the law of the Sabbath, like the whole Mosaic code, was designed and adapted to protect the weak and the poor from hard bondage and op