The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 488

eom, and to eat. It wns legttl to pluck corn lawful ( ob1< f£ov ~v). Reminding the Pha- from a field through which one passed risees of their own words in ver. 2. For (Deut. xxiii. 25), and it is said to be allowed him to eat, neither for them whloh were lltill ; but ns it was held by the ecribes to be with him, but only for the priests t (Lev, R form of reaping, and perhaps of threshing uiv. 9). also, it was considered illeg:11 on the S&bbath Ver. 5.-Matthow only. Or. A second (cf. Edersheim, 'Life,' ii. 56). example, if the first does not convince you. Ver. 2.-But when the l'hariseea saw it, Rave ye not read in the Law. Beyond which they said unto him. The Revised Version there is no appeal. Jewish authors often (but the PhariJJee,s, when they saw it, said appea.l to Scripture in the order of Hagio- unto him) retains the simple order of the grapha, Prophets, and, last of all, Law. He Greek, which more vividly represents the here refers to Lev. xxiv. 8 (cf. also 1 Chron. Pharisees as a party opposed to him. Behold. ix. 32), but Bengal's suggestive remark that They suggest that he had not noticed it. Leviticus was read in the services at that Were the disciples behind him (cf. eh. viii. very time of year is vitiated by the double 23) ? Thy disoiples. Notice that all the uncertainty, first, what time of year it really accusations brought age.inst the disciples in was; and secondly, what is the antiquity of this Gospel concern food: eh. ix. 14, e.s re- the present custom of reading the wholp gards abstaining from it upon fixed days; Law every year (cf. Dr. Lumbyon Acts xiif., eh. xv. 2, as regards eating it without taking '.Add. Note'). According to the express extreme precautions against ceremonial pol- orders of the Law, the priests put in fresh lution; in the present passage, as regards shewbree.d on the se.bbath day. Row that avoiding any profanation of the ae.bbath for on the aabbath days the priests in the its sake. Do. .At this moment. Tha.t whioh temple. The word of wider import is used is not lawful to do upon the se.bbath day (l•pov, not u1<11""1), because the Law still holds (ver. 1, note). good. Profane the sabbath. If their work Ver. 3.-Bnt he said llllto them, Rave ye is regarded in itself, as the action of my not read. Oar Lord answers them by show- disciples is now regarded. And are blame- ing that the principle of the action of his less 1 (guiltless, Revised Version, as also the disciples was sanctioned in the Scriptures to Authorized Version in ver. 7); i.e. in the which they implicitly appealed. He calls eyes of the Law. This you will all grant their attention fust (more Rabbinico; cf. (cf. Schiirer, II. ii. 103). Lightfoot's (' Hor. on ver. 5) to the Prophets (i.e. the former Hehr.') attractive 1uotation from Me.imo- prophets, according to the Hebrew division), nides in' Pese.chim, i. (i.e. 'Hilkoth Karban as teaching by example that holy things are Pesacb,' § i.), "There is no sabbatism at all of secondary importance compared with the in the temple," appears to rest on a mis- benefit of God's people ; and afterwards to Ullderstand.ing. the Law, which implies that the sabbath Yer. 6.-Matthew only. But I say unto itself is of secondary importance compared you, That in this place is one greater than with work neceaee.ry for the sanctuary. He the temple (-roii l•poii µ.u(ov ,,,..,.,., &i5e); then affirms that in the present case there " Gr. a greater thing" (Revised Version is One present who is even grea.ter than margin). A similarly difficult neuter is the sanctuary. He goes on to say that their found iu vers. 41, 42. If the neuter be complaint, however, was ree.lly due to the insisted upon, we must understand Christ to lack, not so much of intellectual as of spiritual refer to his cause, the work in which the knowledge; they had no rapprochement with disciples were engaged. This was greater the God of love, or they would not have than the temple; much more, therefore, was condemned those who, both because they it greater than the se.bbath. Probably, were men and because they were disciples however, our Lord is referring to himself, to of the Son of man, stood above the sabbath. his own Person and character, but uses the What David did, when he wu a- hllllgJ'ed, neuter, either as forming a more decided and they that were with him (1 Sam. ni. contrast to i,pov, or e.e being more weighty 1-7). . than the me.eculine (cf. oh. xi. 9, note). Aleo Ver. 4.-Row he entered into the house of it was leBB defined and more mysterious, He God, and did eat; rather, and they did eat, could not reveal to them the secret of his with Revised Version margin ((~11-yov), tho presence. Observe the use, even at this 11imple plural verb laying the action less at ete.ge in his ministry, of words implying the David's door than does the phrase ln the decadence of the temple service (cf. Johu iv. parallel passages--'' and he gave" them to 21 ; Acts vi. 14). In thia place; here (Re- eo.t. Observe that the mention of ordinary vised Version), e.e in vers. 41, 42. people, like David's attendants, adds to the Ver. 7.-Matthew only. But If ye had force of our Lord's illustration. The 1hew- known what this mee.neth, I will have bread (Exod. uv. SO; Lev. u:iv. 6-7). meroy, and not saorifioe, 71 would not have Whioh. Which kind of food (8), Wu not oondemnell the JUiltle11 (on the 11,uotatio11e oa, m. 1-60.] THE GOSPEL .ACCORDING TO ST. MATTIIEW. 485