The Pulpit Commentary — Mark — Volume 1 — Section 117

of David; and not only of David, whose eminence might be thought such as to entitle him to greater consideration, and sufficient to make his case exceptional, but in favour of those who wore with him, Our Lord adduces this instance of violating the letter of the Law, asking the Pharisees, according to a formula of their own, but with scornful irony, or rather in a tone of severe reproof, "Did ye never read?" or, as it is expre~sed in St. Luke, "Did ye not even read this'/ "-ye who are such sticklers for the Law and adepts in Scripture knowledge. VI. SoLU'l'ION OF A DIFFICULTY, The name of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech ha-s given trouble. Of the many attempted solutions, such as in the presence of Abiathar, afterwards high priest, for it was Ahimelech, father of Abiatbar, who really gave the shewbread to David and bis men; or that he had both names; or that the deed wa1.3 done by Abimelech in the pontificate of Abiathar his son, as Theophylact explains it; or in the section or paragraph of Abiathar the high priest; or that the insertion of the article distinguishes the lifetime from the pontificate of Abiathar, according to Mid- dle1Mm ;-of all these it must be said that they either involve error or have the appear- ance of mere shifts or evasions. Of them all, Middleton's is perhaps best known, and has been adopted by not a few critical scholars. Thus, in the first edition of Scrivener's 'Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,' we find the following statement:-'' In Mark ii. 26, brl 'AfJ. iipx., • in the time that Abiathar was high priest,' would be historically incorrect; while ,,.1 •A/J. Toii "PX·,' in the days of Abiathar the high priest,' is suitable enough." But this insertion of the article is a matter of dispute, for though it is found in four respectable uncials, including A and C, as also in the following cursives :-1, 33, and 69, of which 33 is known as the "Queen of the cursives ; '' yet it is absent in this place from tt, B, L, and many other uncials, and is rejected by most of the critical editors. We cannot, therefore, build an argument on it. We are inclined to Fritzsche's opinion, that the real removal of the difficulty appears to be effected by the position of the words ,,,.1 'AfJ. "PX•, which implies that the transaction took place in the time of Abiathar, afterwards high priest; while i1rl iipx, 'AfJ. would restrict the occurrence to the actual time of his priesthood, though it is admitted that with a par- ticiple, as 1£pxovros or fJc,.u,>,.•6011Tos, for example, the position does not thus alter the sense. For the mention of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech several reasons might be assigned. He was more celebrated than his father, as also better known to the readers of Old Testament Scripture; besides, the mention of him as being present, and a consenting party to the transaction, would be calculated to obviate the possible retort which the Pharisees might otherwise make, namely, that Ahimelech paid the penalty of his profanation by his being slain. VII. THE OBABGE OF SABBATH-BREAKING BY THE DISCIPLES FURTHER REFUTED. Additional arguments are found in the Gospel of St. Matthew to disprove the charge of sabbath profanation which these narrow, bigoted Pbarisees urged against the disciples. The rather laborious service of the priests on the sabbath, in sacrificing, removing the shewbread, and other duties, was an apparent profanation of the sabbath; but in their case the Law was relaxed, or rather the principle of God's love to man, which lay at the foundation of the Law, and was the animating spirit of the Law, took precedence of the letter. He taxes them with culpable and disgraceful, if not wilful, ignorance of such a plain Scripture as "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." If, then, the necessity of David and his men prevailed over the letter of the Law; if the sabbath services of the priests made sabbath labour to some extent a duty ; and if the claim of mercy be prior to and higher than that of sacrifice, our Lord claims exemption for his hungry disciples from the unbending rigour of the Law, or rather from the harsh, superstitious misinterpre- tation of it by those cold, heartless, cavilling, censorious Pharisees. VIII. THE SABBATH DESIGNED TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO MAN. Our Lord proceeds to take higher ground. The sabbath was made for the sake of man, Gentile as well as Jew; it originated for his benefit; it is only the means to an end, and man's interests are that end; it owes its existence to man, and has the reason of its existence in man. It is a memorial of his creation, a remembrancer of his redemption, and a foretaste as well as pledge o{ his future and everlasting rest. It is most valuable in its essential nature and right use; but if the circumstantial come into collision with the essential, or the ceremonial conflict with the moral, in either case the former, in the very nature of things, is bound to give place. BT. llrlARK, 1  114 'l'HE GOSrEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [OH, m. 1-36.