NEW COLLEGE LIBRARY and did eat the * shew-bread, which is not lawful to eat, (Matth. which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests), but for the priests, (Luke, alone) and gave alfo to them which were with him? The house of God, into which David went for the fhew-bread, was not the tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither. But it was the tri perroisvices, Matt. i. 11. feems to fignify before the captivity. Lightfoot thinks it thould be tranflated, in the days of Abiathar the fon of the high prieft, as ty Hàs fignifies the son of Heli, Luke iii. 23. Whitby is of opinion that aggius in this paffage, fignifies a chief priest, an eminent man of the order, which fenfe it must be acknowledged the word has often in fcripture. Beza fufpects the genuineness of the reading. Yet the copy from which the Syriac was taken, reads Abiathar, as all the copies at prefent do. Grotius fuppofes, that Abiathar being a more celebrated person than his father, is mentioned rather than him. Perhaps Abiathar was present when David came, whose request he might advise his father to grant. If fo, it was abundantly proper to mention him in this affair. He is called Abiathar the high priest, though when David applied to him he did not poffefs that dignity, it being common to denominate people in every part of their life, by fuch eminent offices as they have held in any part thereof. Perhaps it may illuftrate the matter to obferve, that Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was not flain with the priests of Nob. For though Saul threatened him and all his father's houfe with death, 1 Sam. xxii. 16. it is not faid he was killed. We are only told that Doeg fell upon the priests, and flew fourscore and five of them. Besides, had Ahimelech been lain, the high priesthood would have been taken from his family, which it was not; for Solomon's depofition of Abiathar, Ahimelech's fon, is declared to have been an accomplishment of the word of the Lord concern. ing the house of Eli. Till this period, therefore, Eli's defcendents enjoyed the high priesthood. See the note on the words Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, Luke iii. 1. §14. But, which puts the matter beyond doubt, Alimelech is faid to have been high priest in David's reign, 1 Chron. xviii. 16. Ahimelech's father was called Abiathar, 1 Chr. xviii. 16. and was high priest, being alive when David received the fhew.bread. So our Lord fays exprefsly. Perhaps being old he was incapable of officiating, which was the reafon that his eldeft fon Ahimelech supplied his place, and inquired of the Lord for David. It is true, in the hiftory of this affair, Ahimelech is called the fon of Ahitub, Sam. xxii. 20. but every where elfe he is called the son of Abiathar. Either therefore Ahimelech's father had two names, which was no uncommon thing in thofe days; or there is an error of his name in the text of Samuel, which might arife from the hiftory's mentioning his contemporary Ahitub the father of Zadok of the line of Eleazar, or from fome other caufe unknown to us. And what has increafed the difficulty of this affair is, that Ahimelech the son of Abiathar had a fon named Abiathar, who after the flaughter at Nob fled to David, became his companion, and after his father Ahimelech's death was made high priest, in which office he continued till he was depofed by Solomon for confpiring with Adonijah, as we are told 1 Kings ii. 50,-53. Ver. 26. Shew-bread.] In the Hebrew this is called the bread of faces. Calmet after the Jewish writers obferves, that as the tabernacle firit, and the temple afterwards, was God's palace and place of refidence, fo the weekly fervices of bread, and wine, and falt, were intended to denote his habitation among them, as if he had been an earthly prince for whom fuck provifion was made. the house of the high priest, fituated befide the court of the tabernacle, and called the houfe of God on that account. Thus the apartment in which the high priest Eli and his fervant Samuel flept, is called the boufe of the Lord, 1 Sam. iii. 15.—Mat. xii. 5. Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the prieks in the temple profane the fabbath and are blamelefs? He did not mean that thefe words are to be found in the law, but that they might read in the law, how that the priests were obliged on the fabbath days, to perform fuch fervile work in the temple, as confidered feparately from the end of it, was a profanation of the fabbath, and yet were guiltlefs, because it was neceffary to the public worship, on account of which the fabbath was inftituted. From Numb. xxviii. 9. it appears, that befides the continual burnt-offering, the priests were obliged on the fabbaths to facrifice two lambs extraordinary, by which their servile work was that day double of what it was on the other days of the week. This, though really no profanation of the fabbath, might according to the common notion of the Jews be fo termed; and therefore in speaking of it our Lord calls it fo. 6. But I fay unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple. If you reply that the priests were not culpable in thofe actions, because they were undertaken for the temple-fervice, I acknowledge it; but at the fame time I must observe, that if the temple with its fervice is of fuch importance as to merit a particular difpenfation from the law of the fabbath, I and my difciples, whofe bufinefs of promoting the falvation of men is a matter of more importance, may on that account with more reason take the fame liberty in a cafe of the like neceffity. According to this interpretation, the reading pulov, a greater work, instead of av a greater perfon, which is authorized by fo many MSS. will have a peculiar elegance. There is here a much more noble work carrying on than the temple-service. Or the common reading may be retained thus: if the servile work done in the temple on the fabbath is not reckoned an offence,. because it is undertaken on account of the temple-worship, the rubbing of the ears for which you blame my difciples cannot be any, feeing they do it in order to fupport their life, while they are employed in the fervice of one who is greater than the temple. For his human nature was a much more auguft temple, in refpect of the effential inhabitation of the divinity than that" at Jerufalem. Hence he himself called his body a temple at the first paffover, John ii. 21. 7. But if ye bad known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not facrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. I delight in mercy (fo 9λ fignifies, Matt. xxvii. 43) more than in facrifice, for this is the Hebrew form of comparifon. Befides, it is not to be fuppofed that God would fay to the Jews, he had no pleasure in facrifice, which was his own inftitution. Thus our Lord plainly proved it to be God's will, that works of mercy fhould not be left undone, though attended with the violation of the most facred ceremonial inftitutions. Mark ii. 27. And be faid unto them, The fabbath was made for man, and not man for the fabbath: the fabbath was contrived for the benefit and relief of man, being instituted in commemoration of the creation of the world finished in fix days, and to perpetuate unto lateft ages the knowledge of this grand truth, that the world was made by God, in oppofition both to atheism and idolatry, the fins which mankind have ever been apt to run into. It was inftituted also that men abstaining from all forts of labour, but fuch as are neceffary to the exercifes of piety and charity, might have leifure for meditating on the works of creation, wherein the perfections of God are fairly delineated; and that by these meditations they might acquire, not only the knowledge of God, but a relish of spiritual and divine pleasures, flowing from the contemplation of God's attributes, from the exercife of the love of God, and from obedience to his commandments. It is thus that men are prepared for entering into the heavenly reft, of which the earthly fabbath is an emblem. To conclude, among the Ifraelites, the fabbath was appointed to keep up the remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt, and for the comfort of their flaves and beafts, humanity to both being especially incumbent upon a people, who had once groaned under the heaviest bondage. From all which it is evident, that to burden men, much more to hurt them, through the observation of the fabbath, which has no intrinfic excellency in itself, is to act quite contrary to the defign of God in appointing it. Mark i 28. Therefore the Son of man is Lord alfo of the fabbath; fince the fabbath was inftituted for the benefit of man, the obfervation of it in cafes of neceffity may be difpenfed with by any man whatfoever, but especially by me who am lawgiver of the Jewith commonwealth, and can make what alterations in its inftitutions I think fit. This argument, drawn from the confideration of his own dignity, our Lord largely infifted on, when he was profecuted for a pretended profanation of the fabbath, by the cure which he performed at Bethesda, John v. 17,-30. §. 45 *." * For the order obferved by Mark and Luke in this part of the hiftory," fee § 34-Jefus was often blamed by the Pharifees as having broken the fabbath, particularly John v. 16. §45. Luke vi. 2. §46. Matth. xii. 10 147. John ix. 14. §78. Luke xii. 14. §90. Luke xiv, 2. § 92. XLVII. A few days after the fecond paffover, a man that had bis band witbered, is cured in a fynagogue near Jerufalem. After which Jefus goes away to Galilee. Matth. xii. 9,-21. Mark iii. 1,-12. Lukevi. 6,-II. AT this time Jefus continued a while about Jerufalem, teachmg not only the inhabitants of that city and of the neighbourVOL.11. G ing ing villages, but the people who had come from all quarters to the feast, and who, in all probability, tarried on this occafion longer than ufual, in order to hear the fermons and fee the miracles of a prophet, concerning whom they had heard fuch aftonishing reports. We may therefore fuppofe, that during his abode in the neighbourhood of Jerufalem, our Lord was conftantly attended by great multitudes; and confequently, that every fermon he preached had many hearers, and every miracle he performed many witneffes. In examining the following paffage of the hiftory, these observations deserve attention. For we are told that on another fabbath, perhaps the fabbath immediately following. the first fecond-day fabbath mentioned in the preceding fection, Jefus entered into a fynagogue near Jerufalem, and taught the people. Luke, who alone mentions our Lord's teaching on this occafion, has not told us what the fubject of this fermon was. He only obferves, that there was in the fynagogue a person whose right hand was withered, and gives an account of the miracle which Jefus fo kindly performed for the recovery thereof. Luke vi. 6. And it came to pass alfo on another fabbath, that he entered into the (Matt. their) Synagogue and taught, and there was a man (Mark, there) whofe right hand was withered. His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from Mark iii. 5. Matthew feems to fay this miracle happened immediately after the tranfaction recorded in the preceding fedion. Matth. xii. 9. And when he was departed thence, he went into their Synagogue, &c. Nevertheless, the tranfition which he makes ufe of, does not neceffarily imply this. See Prelim. Observ. iii. On this occafion, there were prefent fcribes and Pharifees, persons of the greatest character and learning, who had either mixed with the crowd that followed Jefus, or were in the fynagogue before he Thefe men, ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he faid or did, with an intention to find fome matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Wherefore when they faw Jefus, after he had ended his fermon, fix his eyes on the man whose right hand was withered, they made no doubt but he would effay to cure him, and refolved to charge him directly with the fin, for which they blamed the difciples the fabbath before, hoping at leaft to raise prejudices in the minds of the people against him. Luke vi. 7. And the fcribes and Pharifees watched him, whether be would heal on the fabbath day; that they might find an accufation against him. So grofs was their hypocrify, that they refolved to raise an outcry against him, if on the fabbath he should give a lame man the use of his hand, while they themselves were profaning it by an action which would have polluted any day; were seeking an opportunity to murder one who never had done them any harm, but a great deal of good. The evangelist ob came. ferves that the malicious defigns of the Pharifees were not hid from Jefus. We may therefore in this inftance, see the greatness of the courage of our bleffed Lord, who refolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expofe him to the fiercest refentment of these wicked men. 8. But be knew their thoughts, and faid to the man which had the withered hand, Rife up, and ftand forth in the mids. He ordered him to fhew himself to the whole congregation, that the fight of his diftrefs might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more fenfibly ftruck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to its former dimensions and activity in an inftant. And be arofe and flood forth. Matt. xii. 10. And they asked him, faying, Is it lawful to heal on the fabbath days that they might accufe him. When the Pharifees faw Jefus going to perform the cure, they put this question to him, by which they declared in the ftrongest terms their opinion of its unlawfulness. But in fo doing, they had no intention to prevent the action, which they knew he was refolved upon, but to render him odious to the common people, expecting that he would openly declare fuch things lawful, in oppofition to the definitions of the doctors, who had all determined that to perform cures on the fabbath, was a violation of the holy rest. Or if he hould give no answer to their question, as it implied an affirmation of the unlawfulness of what he was about to attempt, they thought it would render him inexcufable, and give the better colour to their accufation. Luke vi. 9. Then faid Jefus unto them, I will ask you one thing, Is it lawful on the fabbath days to do good or to do evil? to fave life or to deftroy it? (Mark, to fave life or to kill?) That he might expofe the malice and fuperftition of the Pharifees, he appealed to the dictates of their own mind, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the fabbaths than to do evil, to fave life than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him on the fabbath to fave mens lives, than for them to plot his death without the leaft provocation. This was a fevere but just rebuke, which in the prefent circumftances must have been fenfibly felt. Yet the Pharifees pretending not to underftand his meaning, made him no anfwer, Mark iii. 4. But they held their peace. Wherefore he answered them with an argu'ment which the dullness of ftupidity could not poffibly overlook, nor the peevishnefs of cavilling gainfay. Matth. xii. 11. And be faid unto them, What man fhall there be among you, that shall bave one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the fabbath day, will be not lay bold on it, and lift it out? 12. How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the fabbath days. If the regard you have for the life of your catthe leads you to do fervile work on the fabbath for the prefervation of a fingle fheep, charity should much rather induce you to labour |