Vv.1,2. σάββασιν: dative plural, as if from σάββατ-ος, other cases (genitive, singular and plural, dative, singular, accusative, plural) are formed from σάβ- βατον (vide ver. 2).--διὰ τῶν σπορίµων might mean through fields adapted for growing grain, but the context requires fields actually sown; fields of corn.— ἐπείνασαν: for the form wide iv. 2. This word supplies the motive for the action, which Mark leaves vague.—
181
XII. τ. ΕΝ ἐκείνω τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς σάββασι a bere and
διὰ τῶν ὃ σπορίµων: of δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν,
, Ὀτίλλειν Sotdxuas καὶ ἐσθίειν.
~ ~ a ” a > αὐτῷ, “Ιδού, οἱ µαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν, ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι ποιεῖν ἐν
σαββάτῳ.”
Αα [ 3. Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, “Οὐκ " ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησε
dl Yap in parall. καὶ ἤρξαντο b here and in paral.
2. ot δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπον c here,
parall. and Mk. iv. 28. d Ch. xix. 4; Xx. 16,42; xxiv. 15 al.
Δαβίδ, ὅτε ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς] καὶ ot pet αὐτοῦ; 4. πῶς εἰσῆλθεν e Heb. ix. 2.
cis τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους "τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν,”
f Acts xxiv. 6 (often in
= A a A a Sept.). οὓς > οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν, οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς κας Lee
ες A , 3, 9 sou 3 A , ς al , ἱερεῦσι µόνοις; 5+ Ἡ οὔκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόµῳ, ὅτι τοῖς σάββασιν
in ver. 7.
οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ 18 σάββατον *BeByrodar, καὶ 5 ἀναίτιοί εἶσι ;
1 The αυτος (Τ/Σ) comes from Mk. (ii. 25) ; it is omitted in ΞΒ07Δ al. 2εφαγον in $B—probably the true reading. 39in BD. The reading of T. R. (έφαγεν ους) is from Mk.
ἤρξαντο: perhaps emphasis should be laid on this word. No sooner had they begun to pluck ears than fault was found. Pharisees on the outlook for offences. So Carr, Camb. G. T.—Ver. 2. ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν π. ε. σαββάτῳ. The emphasis here lies on the last word. Tohelp one- self, when hungry, with the hand was humanely allowed in the Deuteronomic law (Deut. xxiii. 25), only to use the sickle was forbidden as involving waste. But according to the scribes what was lawful on other days was unlawful on Sabbath, because plucking ears was veaping. ‘* Metens Sabbato vel tantillum, reus est’? (Lightfoot rendering a passage from the Talmud). Luke adds ψώχοντες, rubbing with the hands. He took the offence to be threshing. Microscopic offence in either case, proving prima facie malice in the fault-finders. But honest objection is not inconceivable to one who remembers the interdict placed by old Scottish piety on the use of the razor on Sabbath. We must be just even to Pharisees.
Vv. 3-8. Christ's defence. It is two- fold. (1) He shields disciples by examples: David and the priests ; to both the fault- finders would defer (vv. 3-5); (2) He indicates the principles involved in the examples (vv. 6-8). The case of David was apposite because (a) it was a case of eating, (b) it probably happened on Sabbath, (c) it concerned not only David but, as in the present instance, followers ; therefore οἱ pet’ αὐτοῦ, ver. 3, carefully added. (b) does not form an element in the defence, but it helps to account for the reference to David’s conduct. In that view Jesus must have regarded the act of David as a Sabbatic incident, and
that it was may not unnaturally be in- ferred from 1 Sam. xxi. 6. Vide Light- foot, ad loc.—This was probably also the current opinion. The same remark applies to the attendants of David. From the history one might gather that David was really alone, and only pre- tended to have companions. But if, as is probable, it was usually assumed that he was accompanied, Jesus would be jus- tified in proceeding on that assumption, whatever the fact was (vide Schanz, ad loc).—Ver. 4. εἰσῆλθεν, ἔφαγον, ie entered, they ate. Mark has ἔφαγεν. Weiss explains the harsh change of sub- ject by combination of apostolic source with Mark. The two verbs point to two offences against the law: entering a holy place, eating holy bread. The sin of the disciples was against a holy time. But the principle involved was the same = ceremonial rules may be overruled by higher considerations.—6 οὐκ ἐξὸν jy. οὓς in Mark and ‘Luke agreeing with ἄρτους, and here also in T. R., but 6 doubtless the true reading; again pre- senting 2 problem in comparative exegesis (vide Weiss-Meyer). 6 ought to mean ‘‘ which thing it was not lawful to do,” but it may be rendered ‘‘ which kind of bread,” etc.—el μὴ, except; absolutely un- lawful, except in case of priests.—Ver. 5. This reference to the priests naturally leads on to the second instance taken from their systematic breach of the technical Sabbath law in the discharge of sacerdotal duty.—% οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε, have ye not read? not of course the statement following, but directions on which such a construction could be put, as in Numb. xxviii. 9, concerning the burnt offering of two lambs. They had