182
Ἠέστι- 6. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μείζων] ἐστὶν be.
means,
vide Lk.
WI 011. . i Lk. vi. 37. τοὺς ἀναιτίους.
jJas.v.6 , : “5
(the pass. ἀνθρώπου.
in ver. 37).
1 µειζον in NBD al.
κειτε τί ®
, , > a 8. κύριος γάρ ἐστι καὶ
4, εἰ δὲ ἐγνώ-
” 9 , ; ἐστιν, « Ἔλεον ” θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν͵ οὐκ ἂν ἱκατεδικάσατε
τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
µειζων (LA) is a misjudged attempt at correction,
3 This is another grammatical correction (vide ix. 13), ελεος in NBCD33.
3 xat omitted in ΜΒΟΓΡ, etc.
read often enough, but had not under- stood. As Euthy. Zig. remarks, Jesus reproaches them for their vain labour, as not understanding what they read (μὴ ἐπιγινώσκουσιν & ἀναγινώσκουσι).---βε- βηλοῦσι, profane, on the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath law, as an absolute pro- hibition of work. Perhaps the Pharisees themselves used this word as a technical term, applicable even to permissible Sabbath labour. So Schanz after Schott-
gen.
Vv. 6-8. The principles involved. The facts stated raise questions as to the reasons. The Pharisees were men of rules, not accustomed to go back on principles. The passion for minutiz killed reflection. The reasons have been already hinted in the statement of the cases: ὅτε ἐπείνασεν, ver. 3; ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, νετ. 5: hunger, the temple; human needs, higher claims. These are referred to in inverse order in vv. 6-7.—Ver. 6. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν: solemn affirmation, with a certain tone in the voice.—tov ἱεροῦ μεῖζον. Though they might not have thought of the matter before, the claim of the temple to overrule the Sabbath law would be admitted by the Pharisees. Therefore, Jesus could base on it an argument a fortiori. The Sabbath must give way to the temple and its higher interests, therefore to something higher still. What was that something? Christ Himself, according to the almost unani- mous opinion of interpreters, ancient and modern; whence doubtless the μείζων of T. R. But Jesus might be thinking rather of the kingdom than of the king; a greater interest is involved here, that of the kingdom of God. Fritzsche takes μεῖζον as = teaching men, and curing them of vice then going on. It may be asked: How did the interest come in? The disciples were following Jesus, but what was He about? What created the urgency? Whence came it that the disciples needed to pluck ears of standing corn? Wedonot know. That is one of the many ασια in the evangelic history. But it may be assumed that
It comes in from the parall.
there was something urgent going on in connection with Christ’s ministry, whereby He and His companions were overtaken with extreme hunger, so that they were fain to eat unprepared food (ἀκατέργαστον σῖτον, Euthy. Zig. on νετ. 7).—Ver. 7. The principle of human need stated in terms of a favourite pro- phetic oracle (ix. 13).—et δὲ ἐγνώκειτε εκ. οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε: the form of expression, a past indicative in protasis, with a past indicative with ἂν in apodosis, implies that the supposition is contrary to fact (Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, § 248). The Pharisees did not know what the oracle meant; hence on a pre- vious occasion Jesus bade them go and learn (ix. 13). If their pedantry blinded them to distinctions of higher and lower in institutions, or rather made them reckon the least the greatest command, minutiz testing obedience, it still more deadened their hearts to the claims of mercy and humanity. Of course this idolatry went on from bad to worse. For the Jews of a later, templeless time, the law was greater than the temple (Holtz., in H.C., quoting Weber).— ἀναιτίους: doubly guiltless: as David was through imperious hunger, as the priests were when subordinating Sabbath, to temple, requirements.—Ver. 8. This weighty Jogion is best understood when taken along with that in Mark ii. 27 = the Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath. The question is: Does it © merely state a fact, or does it also con- tain the rationale of the fact? That depends on the sense we give to the title Son of Man. Asa technical name = Messiah, it simply asserts the authority of Him who bears it to determine how the Sabbath is to be observed in the Kingdom of God. Asaname of humility, making no obtrusive exceptional claims, like Son of David or Messiah, it suggests a reason for the lordship in sympathy with the ethical principle embodied in the prophetic oracle. The title does not indeed mean mankind, or any man, homo quivis, as Grotius and Kuinoel