마태복음 12:4 주석

In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's clearing of the law of the fourth commandment concerning the sabbath-day, and vindicating it from some superstitious notions advanced by the Jewish teachers; showing that works of necessity and mercy are to be done on that day (Mat 12:1-13). II. The prudence, humility, and self-denial of our Lord Jesus in working his miracles (Mat 12:14-21). III. Christ's answer to the blasphemous cavils and calumnies of the scribes and Pharisees, who imputed his casting out devils to a compact with the devil (v. 22-37). IV. Christ's reply to a tempting demand of the scribes and Pharisees, challenging him to show them a sign from heaven (Mat 12:38-45). V. Christ's judgment about his kindred and relations (Mat 12:46-50).

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn,.... That is, the corn fields, as the other evangelists express it. It being on a sabbath day, it is very probable, that Christ and his disciples were going to some public place of worship, the way to which lay through some fields of corn, which were now ripe: for Luke says, it was on the "second sabbath after the first", or rather "the first sabbath after the second"; that is, the first sabbath after the second day of the passover, when the sheaf of the first fruit was offered, and harvest was begun. And his disciples were an hungered; it being in the morning before they had broke their fast; and this circumstance is mentioned to show the reason of the following action, and to excuse it: at which the Pharisees were so much offended, and of which they accused them, as having done what was very criminal: and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat; Luke adds, "rubbing them in their hands"; and so here in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, it is rendered, "they began to rub": as they passed along, they plucked off the ears of corn, either barley or wheat, and rubbed them in their hands, to get the grain clear of the husk, or beard, and eat them; contenting themselves with such mean and unprepared food, when the Jews on that day fed on the best of dainties (e). (e) Vid. Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 30. sect. 7, 8, 9, 10.

How he entered into the house of God,.... Not the temple, which was not then built; but the tabernacle, which was then at Nob, the city of the priests, and which probably adjoined to Abimelech's house: and did eat the shewbread; for that this is meant by the hallowed bread, in Sa1 21:6 is certain; though R. Joseph Kimchi (n) thinks it was the bread of the thank offering; to which R. Levi ben Getsom (o) seems to incline: but the general sense of the Jewish doctors (p) is, that it was the showbread; and which is very clear from that text, and is rightly affirmed by Christ; which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests: see Lev 24:5 and so the Jews say that this bread , "is forbidden to strangers" (q); that is, to any but the priests, which, after the burning of the frankincense, was divided equally among them: that course of priests that came into the service had six cakes, and that which went out six; though the high priest had a right to half himself, but he did not use to take it, it being judged not to his honour to do so (r). No hint is here given, nor in the history, in Sa1 21:1 that it was on the sabbath day that David came to Ahimelech, and ate the showbread; but this is observed, and disputed, by the Jewish writers. Some indeed are in a doubt about it; but others (s) readily give into it, that it was on the sabbath day, which he chose to flee in, for the greater safety and preservation of his life: and indeed it seems reasonable it should be on that day; since on that day only the showbread was removed from the table, and other loaves put in the room. One of their writers (t) says, "that showbread was not to be eaten, but on the day, and night of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath David came there.'' Now our Lord's argument stands thus, that if David, a holy, good man, and, the men that were with him, who were men of religion and conscience, when in great distress, through hunger, ate of the showbread, which was unlawful for any to eat of but priests, the high priest himself assenting to it; then it could not be criminal in his disciples, when an hungred, to pluck, rub, and eat a few ears of corn, which were lawful for any man to eat, even though it was on the sabbath day: and for the further vindication of them, he adds, (n) Apud R. David Kimchi in 1 Sam. xxi. 6. (o) In ib. (p) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 95. 2. R. David Kimchi, Abarbinel & Laniado in 1 Sam. xxi. 6. (q) Laniado & Abarbinel in ib. (r) Maimon. Hilch. Tamidin, c. 4. sect. 12. 14. (s) Bemidbar Rabba Parash. 23. fol. 231. 9. Laniado Cli Jaker, fol. 226. 4. & 227. 2, 3, 4. & Jelammedenu in ib. (t) R. Isaiah in 1 Sam. xxi. 5.

The Pharisees, who thought that the key of the kingdom of heaven was in their hands, accused the disciples of doing what was not lawful to do; whereon the Lord reminded them of deeds in which, under the guise of facts, a prophecy was concealed; and that He might show the power of all things, He further added, that it contained the form of that work which was to be, Had ye known what that meaneth, I will have mercy; for the work of our salvation is not in the sacrifice of the Law, but in mercy, and the Law having ceased, we are saved by the mercy of God. Which gift if they had understood they would not have condemned the innocent, that is His Apostles, whom in their jealousy they were to accuse of having transgressed the Law, where the old sacrifices having ceased, the new dispensation of mercy came through them to the aid of all.

How then doth Jesus defend His disciples? "Have ye not read," saith He, "what David did in the temple, when he was an hungered, himself and all they that were with him? how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?" Thus, whereas in pleading for His disciples, He brings forward David; for Himself, it is the Father. And observe His reproving manner: "Have ye not read what David did?" For great indeed was that prophet's glory, so that Peter also afterwards pleading with the Jews, spake on this wise, "Let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried." But wherefore doth He not call him by the name of his rank, either on this occasion or afterwards? Perhaps because He derived His race from him. Now had they been a candid sort of persons, He would have turned His discourse to the disciples' suffering from hunger; but abominable as they were and inhuman, He rather rehearses unto them a history. But Mark saith, "In the days of Abiathar the High Priest:" not stating what was contrary to the history, but implying that he had two names; and adds that "he gave unto him," indicating that herein also David had much to say for himself, since even the very priest suffered him; and not only suffered, but even ministered unto him. For tell me not that David was a prophet, for not even so was it lawful, but the privilege was the priests': wherefore also He added, "but for the priests only." For though he were ten thousand times a prophet, yet was he not a priest; and though he were himself a prophet, yet not so they that were with him; since to them too we know that he gave. "What then," it might be said, "were they all one with David?" Why talk to me of dignity, where there seems to be a transgression of the law, even though it be the constraint of nature? Yea, and in this way too He hath the more entirely acquitted them of the charges, in that he who is greater is found to have done the same. "And what is this to the question," one may say; "for it was not surely the Sabbath, that he transgressed?" Thou tellest me of that which is greater, and which especially shows the wisdom of Christ, that letting go the Sabbath, He brings another example greater than the Sabbath. For it is by no means the same, to break in upon a day, and to touch that holy table, which it was not lawful for any man to touch. Since the Sabbath indeed hath been violated, and that often; nay rather it is continually being violated, both by circumcision, and by many other works; and at Jericho too one may see the same to have happened; but this happened then only. So that He more than obtains the victory. How then did no man blame David, although there was yet another ground of charge heavier than this, that of the priests' murder, which had its origin from this? But He states it not, as applying himself to the present subject only.

To put down the chicanery of the Pharisees it is recorded in ancient history that David was fleeing from Saul and came to Nob. Having been received by Ahimelech the priest, he asked him for food. Since Ahimelech had no common bread at hand, he gave David some holy bread, which only priests and Levites could lawfully eat. The priest asked whether the young men had kept themselves from women, and he received the answer “since yesterday and the day before.” He did not hesitate to give the bread, having thought it better, remembering that the prophet says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” In view of the danger of hunger, Ahimelech judged it better to help people than to offer sacrifice to God. The slain victim pleasing to God is the salvation of humankind. If David is holy and the priest Ahimelech is not offensive to you, but they have broken both commandments of the law with a probable excuse—in this case, hunger—why do you not find acceptable the same hunger in the apostles that you find acceptable in others? However, in this there is a great difference: the disciples plucked grain on the sabbath, whereas David ate the levitical bread.… Note that neither David nor his young men accepted the loaves of the presence until they replied that they had kept themselves from women.

(Ver. 3, 4.) But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? To refute the slander of the Pharisees, he recalls an old story, when David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nob and was received by the priest Ahimelech. He asked for food, and since he did not have any ordinary bread, Ahimelech gave him the consecrated bread, which only the priests and Levites were allowed to eat. And he merely asked if there were any boys in the world born of women; and when he responded, without hesitation, he did not hesitate to give bread, deeming it better to free people from the danger of hunger, as the prophet says: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hosea 6:6), rather than to offer sacrifice to God. For a merciful offering is pleasing to God and the salvation of humanity. Therefore, the Lord opposes and says: 'If even David, who is holy, and Ahimelech the high priest, are not condemned by you, but rather both have transgressed the command of the Law with a justifiable excuse, and hunger is the cause, why do you not approve the same hunger in the apostles, which you approve in others?' Although there is a great difference in this. Those people rubbed the ears of grain in their hands on the Sabbath, while others ate the Levitical loaves and came near the feast of the New Moon, on which day he was sought for at the banquet and fled from the royal court. Note that neither David nor his servants took the showbread before they answered that they were clean from women.

Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace. Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of show-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women.

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 10.) It should be observed, that one example is taken from royal persons, as David, the other from priestly, as those who profane the sabbath for the service of the Temple, so that much less can the charge concerning the rubbing the ears of corn attach to Him who is indeed King and Priest.

Setting aside for the while observances of the law, He leads His disciples through the grainfields, so that by eating they might set aside the law of the sabbath. Again the Pharisees find fault with the physical passion, hunger, while they themselves committed worse sins, but the Lord reproves them with a story of David. For David dared, He says, because of hunger to do something even greater. The loaves of oblation, the showbread, are the twelve loaves which were set out each day on the altar, six on the right side and six on the left. Although David was a prophet, he ought not to have eaten them for it was only permitted for priests to eat them. And how much more so was it unlawful for those with him to eat? Nevertheless, because of hunger he could be forgiven. So, too, with the disciples.

He said to them... Here the justification is given: first, with certain examples; secondly, with a text of Scripture (v. 7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives an example, in which some were excused on account of necessity; secondly, in which some were excused on account of holiness (v. 5). He says, therefore, He said to them... In Leviticus (24:5) it is read that twelve loaves were baked from fine flour and placed on the table of proposition on the Sabbath, and on another Sabbath they were removed and others put there, and the first ones were eaten by the sons of Aaron. Then in 1 Samuel (21:6) it is written that when David was fleeing from Saul, Ahimelech divided those loaves among them. This is why he says, Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him. For David was a good man, of whom the Lord says that he has found a man according to his own heart (1 Sam 13:8). But someone might say that David was a prophet and so was allowed to take them. Therefore, he adds, and those who were with him. The loaves of proposition were the ones offered on the Sabbath and it was not lawful according to the precept to eat them (Lev 24:5). But what does this have to do with the case? Because it was the Sabbath, when he did this. And this is clear, because he said, "I have no bread except what I took form the Lord's table," and he did this only on the Sabbath. Likewise on the first day of the month was the feast of the new moon; therefore, if it happened on the Sabbath, it was violated by necessity. But it still seems that he did not violate it, because it is not a sin to eat on the Sabbath. However, Chrysostom says that he violated more than the Sabbath, because he took loaves, which were not lawful for anyone to use, out of necessity. Likewise, it should be noted that according to Chrysostom some precepts are such that they are commanded for their own sake, and these cannot be broken for any need; but some are not for their own sake but for the sake of a figure, and these can be broken at certain times and places: as a fast can now be broken out of necessity. But that bread was the figure of another bread, namely, the bread of the altar, which is received not only by the priest but by the people; therefore, David was the figure of that people. Hence Revelation (5:10): "You have made us a kingdom and priests to our God."

PLUCKING CORN EARS ON THE SABBATH DAY. ( = Mar 2:23-28; Luk 6:1-5). (Mat 12:1-8) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn--"the cornfields" (Mar 2:23; Luk 6:1). and his disciples were an hungered--not as one may be before his regular meals; but evidently from shortness of provisions: for Jesus defends their plucking the corn-ears and eating them on the plea of necessity. and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat--"rubbing them in their hands" (Luk 6:1).

How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?--No example could be more apposite than this. The man after God's own heart, of whom the Jews ever boasted, when suffering in God's cause and straitened for provisions, asked and obtained from the high priest what, according to the law, it was illegal for anyone save the priests to touch. Mark (Mar 2:26) says this occurred "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." But this means not during his high priesthood--for it was under that of his father Ahimelech--but simply, in his time. Ahimelech was soon succeeded by Abiathar, whose connection with David, and prominence during his reign, may account for his name, rather than his father's, being here introduced. Yet there is not a little confusion in what is said of these priests in different parts of the Old Testament. Thus he is called both the son of the father of Ahimelech (Sa1 22:20; Sa2 8:17); and Ahimelech is called Ahiah (Sa1 14:3), and Abimelech (Ch1 18:16).