Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

26 Even so, Father, for so it | me of my Father; and no man seemed good in thy sight.

27 All things are delivered unto

ble themselves and become like little children. Matt. x. 42; xviii. 3, 4; John xxi. 5. He doubtless used the term babes here in reference to his disciples. The general idea is, that the truths and principles of the gospel, or the reign of grace, had been concealed from those who esteemed themselves to be wise, and were reverenced by the multitude for their wisdom, and had been made known to the disciples, who were ignorant of what the world calls wisdom, and were held in utter contempt, as babes in knowledge, by those who had made greater acquisitions of worldly science.

The language of this verse is liable to be misunderstood. It seems to imply that Jesus thanked God that the wise did not know the truth. The phrase is idiomatic, and must be so interpreted. An instance of the same idiom occurs, Rom. vi. 17. The meaning is this; I thank thee that, having hidden these things from the wise and prudent, thou hast revealed them unto babes. So in the other case; the apostle does not thank God that his brethren had been servants of sin; but that, having been such, they had been converted and become obedient to the

truth.

knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the

ing that he who loves us will not harm us. Though clouds and darkness surround his throne, and conceal his purposes, we may joyfully believe that righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne, and that all his dispensations shall be consistent with his own character. Ps. xcvii. 2. We may, in such cases, adopt the language of our Lord, and with cheerful and confiding hearts say, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."

27. All things. Some understand this in an unlimited sense, as embracing the whole universe; others suppose it indicates only those things which were necessary to the accomplishment of our Lord's mission. While I would not say that underived supreme power was possessed by the Lord Jesus, neither would I hesitate to believe that he possessed any and all authority not inconsistent with the declaration of the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 27. He certainly claimed power and authority over all men. John xvii. 2. The apostle refers to the same fact; and declares that, although the purpose for which Jesus had declared he had received such power had not yet been actually completed, yet means had been applied, which in due time should produce the 26. So it seemed good in thy sight. intended result. Heb. ii. 8, 9. And in Jesus here declares that God's way is regard to his other qualifications for the best way. While this is some- the full execution of his mission, there times the only consideration which can certainly was no lack. John iii. 34, 35; satisfy us in regard to the events which Eph. i. 20-23. Are delivered unto appear undesirable and disastrous, it me of my Father. Or, by my Father. is always a satisfactory consideration, However much power Jesus possessed, when properly realized. Our reason, he acknowledged that he received all at best, is feeble and short-sighted. from his Father. And so long as we beIt is often impossible for us to per- lieve this, and acknowledge the Father ceive why God does thus, rather than as supreme, we need not scruple to otherwise. We may imagine reasons, admit that the Son was endowed with in some cases; in others, we are ut- power, and wisdom, and grace, to any terly in the dark. But when we re- conceivable extent, short of infinite. member that the Lord of heaven and No man dishonors the Father, by earth, the Disposer of all events, is our highly honoring the Son; the danger Father; that he is good, and loves us lies in withholding such honor. John more truly and affectionately than we v. 23. ¶ No man knoweth the Son, but love our children; and that he thus the Father. No one except God fully orders events because it seemeth good comprehended the character, and_digin his sight to do so; we may con- nity, and intentions, of the Son. Even fidently trust that no real harm shall the disciples did not, at that time nor result to us. We may cheerfully meet for a long period subsequently, attain the events of God's providence, trust-such knowledge. Much less the un

Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

28 Come unto me, all ye that labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

believing world. Yet Jesus was not alone; the Father was with him, understood his whole character, and comforted and assisted him. Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, &c. God manifested himself in nature, so that something might be known of his attributes. He made further manifestations of himself in the revelation to his chosen people by Moses and the prophets. Yet a more full display of his character was reserved to be exhibited in the teaching and conduct of his Son. To him the Father made known his purposes and his tender regard for all his children, and commissioned him to make revelation thereof to the world. But none can attain that knowledge, except through the revelation of the Son.

28. Come unto me. Become my disciples, as in ver. 29. "To come to Christ, in the phrase of the New Testament, is to believe in him, and become one of his disciples. Thus, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, John vi. 35, is in the following words expounded thus, he that believeth in me shall not thirst. Thus when our Saviour had complained of the Jews, that on him whom God had sent they would not be lieve, John v. 38, he, ver. 40, changeth the phrase thus, You will not come unto me, that you might have life."— Whitby. All ye that labor, &c. Allusion is here probably made to the condition of the Jews who were burdened severely by the ceremonial law, especially as that law was expounded and administered by the ecclesiastical authority of that age. See Matt. xxiii. 4; Acts xv. 10. In this and the two subsequent verses, Jesus assures them that, by becoming his disciples, they should escape these burdens and obtain rest; for his requirements were not burdensome. It is doubtless true, also, that all who truly believe and trust in him shall obtain relief from other burdens,from doubt and despondency, from immoderate grief, and, most of all, from sin and its miseries: in regard to all these, they shall find rest to their souls.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me: for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

29. Take my yoke upon you, &c. A common figure of speech, indicating subjection. The yoke is an instrument by which oxen are attached to each other in labor. Yoke is used in the Scriptures, as an emblem of bondage or slavery under taskmasters; Lev. xxvi. 13; punishment; Lam. i. 14; affliction or disappointment; Lam. iii. 27; political law; 1 Kings xii. 4; divine law; Jer. v. 5; ceremonial law, Acts xv. 10; Gal. v. 1. "The taking the yoke is a Judaical phrase, their doctors speaking frequently of the yoke of the law, the yoke of the commandments, and the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, which is Christ's yoke."-Whitby. The meaning here is, acknowledge my authority; submit yourselves to my guidance; learn my precepts and obey them. Thus shall you obtain the promised rest, and relief from the bondage which you have hitherto endured. For I am meek and lowly in heart. "Or, I am of a lowly spirit. That is, the temper of my doctrine is meek and merciful. This character of Jesus Christ is opposed to cruelty, to the pride and haughtiness of the Pharisees, who daily rendered the yoke of the law more intolerable by their traditions, and who despised the humble and the meek. See Matt. xii. 19, 20; xxiii. 4, 7."— Beausobre and L'Enfant. His yoke was less burdensome and his government more mild than that of the Pharisees and scribes, because he was not, like them, haughty and oppressive, a despiser of the lowly, John vii. 49; but was full of mercy and tenderness towards the oppressed and the downtrodden. With them he made himself familiar, and subjected himself to reproach for noticing them and laboring for their good. He sought to make them happy, by making them virtuous, and by inspiring them with confidence in their heavenly Father. He required no service of them, except such as directly tended to the advancement of their own happiness, and such as would fill their hearts with peace and quietness. By obedience they should find rest.

CHAPTER XII.

and his disciples were a hungered, and began to pluck the ears of

At that time Jesus went on the corn, and to eat.

sabbath-day through the corn,

2 But when the Pharisees saw

30. For my yoke is easy, &c. "That rubbed the ears of corn in their hands. is, the services that I shall require are Luke vi. 1. This would be natural, if easily rendered. They are not burden- it were wheat or barley, to separate the some, like all other systems of religion.grain from the chaff; but the husks of So the Christian always finds them. In coming to him, there is a peace that passeth all understanding; in believing in him, joy; in following him through evil and good report, a comfort which the world giveth not; in bearing trials, and in persecution, the hope of glory; and in keeping his commandments, great reward."-Barnes. Truly, then, his yoke is liberty; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Gal. v. I; and his burden, the source of spiritual happiness. May we study his precepts and obey them, or bear his yoke and serve him, that we may enjoy the blessing. Jas. i. 25.

CHAPTER XII.

1-8. The parallel places are Mark ii. 23-28, and Luke vì. 1-5.

corn are removed by stripping, not by rubbing. And did eat." "It is evident that they ate, merely to appease hunger; for they seem to have eaten the grain in its raw state, without cooking. Wheat, thus eaten, is palatable, but would not be very tempting to an epicure who desired merely to please his appetite. Although the corn was not the property of the disciples, yet they were justifiable in plucking and eating it; for by an express provision of the Jewish law, a hungry man was permitted to take of his neighbor's fruit so much as would satisfy his hunger. He might eat his fill, at his own pleasure; but he might not carry away fruit to be eaten at another time. Deut. xxiii. 24, 25. Hence the infidel taunt, that the disci1. At that time. At or about the ples stole corn, and their Master justitime when the events occurred, which fied their conduct, only betrays ignoare recorded in the foregoing chapter. rance of Jewish laws and customs. Luke fixes the time more definitely, The Pharisees did not allege that taking though somewhat obscurely, calling it the corn was sinful. They objected "the second Sabbath after the first "only to its being done on the SabbathLuke vi. 1. See the note there. Sab- day, as they considered it a forbidden bath-day. The Jewish Sabbath corre- labor. sponded with our Saturday. The early Christians uniformly regarded the first day of the week more highly than the seventh, because on the morning of the first day, our Saviour rose from the dead, and fully confirmed the glorious doctrine of life and immortality. Hence Christians now devote the first day of the week to religious and spiritual uses; while the Jews, in obedience to the Mosaic law, continue to honor the seventh, or Sabbath, and keep it holy. ¶ Corn. Indian corn, to which we now almost exclusively appropriate this name, was not known in Judea. Indeed, it was not known in any portion of the civilized world, until after the discovery of America. But in England, when the Bible was translated, it was customary, as it now is, to apply the general name of corn to various kinds of grain; such as wheat, rye, barley, oats, &c. It is generally supposed that wheat or barley is here meant. Luke says the disciples

2. Thy disciples do that which is not lawful, &c. This is one of the many instances in which the Pharisees alleged that our Lord was a Sabbath-breaker. For although the charge was ostensibly made against the disciples, yet it was evidently designed to operate against him, he being considered responsible for the conduct of disciples under his instructions. The Jewish law prohibited servile labor on the Sabbath, on pain of death. Exo. xx. 10; xxxv. 2, 3; Numb. xv. 32-36. The expounders of the law, as their manner was, carried this prohibition even to a ridiculous extremity. Maimonides, quoted by Lightfoot, applied it thus: "He that reaps on the Sabbath, though never so little, is guilty. And to pluck the ears of corn is a kind of reaping; and whosoever plucks anything from the springing of his own fruit is guilty, under the name of a reaper." Another, quoted by Beausobre, reasoned thus: "It is for

it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath-day.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did when he was a hungered, and they that were with him;

bidden to reap, and it is forbidden to gather the ears of corn, because that is a sort of reaping. It is not lawful to sow; and therefore neither is it to walk in ground newly sown, because the seed may stick to the feet, and so be carried from place to place, which is in some sort sowing." Upon such principles of interpretation, they alleged that the plucking and eating a few handsfull of corn, to appease hunger, though lawful in itself, was a crime punishable by death, because done on the Sabbathday. They must have found it difficult to discover anything improper in our Lord's conduct, or they would not have resorted to such a pitiful charge as this.

3-8. Jesus repelled the charge of Sabbath-breaking, by several arguments. He showed them, by the example of David and of the priests in the temple, that their charge was inconsistent even with their own views of propriety; and then, by referring to the great object for which the Sabbath was instituted, he exhibited further evidence that his disciples were guiltless. See Mark ii. 27.

3. Have ye not read what David did, &c. The circumstances of this transaction are recorded, 1 Sam. xxi. 3--6. David, with a small company, was fleeing before an enemy. He was hungry. And to procure needful sustenance, he adopted a course which the Pharisees justified, though it was a more direct violation of the law, than was that for which they condemned the disciples.

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5 Or have ye not read in the law how that on the sabbath-days

every Sabbath, on a table in the tabernacle, before the divine presence; after remaining there one week, they were to be removed and eaten by the priests, and by none other. These were called the shew-bread. See Lev. xxiv. 5—9. Such was the food procured by David, by permission of the priest, to appease the hunger of himself and his companions; thus violating the law which allowed none but priests to eat this consecrated bread. Yet the Jewish doctors justified the conduct of David, because he did this to preserve life. They even allowed that the occasion would have justified a still greater transgression. The Rabbins interpreted the phrase, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel, 1 Sam. xxi. 5, thus: "It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for us to eat these loaves from before the Lord, when we are hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf, which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for the table sanctifieth ;) it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten." See Lightfoot. From an allusion in ver. 6, it is generally supposed that this transaction occurred on the Sabbath; in which case, there was a profanation both of the day and of the consecrated food. Our Lord's argument, then, was this: While you justify David in violating the law, in a case of necessity, why do you condemn my disciples for a similar violation, in similar circumstances? Their labor, such as it was, must be regarded not as servile, but a work of necessity.

4. How he entered into the house of God. From the record of this trans- 5. In the law. That is, in the law action, it does not distinctly appear of Moses. Priests in the temple prowhether David entered the house; that fane the Sabbath, and are blameless. is, the tabernacle, for the temple was The law prohibited the performance of not then erected. But in some place any servile labor on the Sabbath, and he met the priest, made known his pronounced it a profanation. Yet by wants, and obtained relief. T Shew-requisition of the same law the priests bread. Or, bread of the presence. By the law, it was required that twelve loaves of new bread should be placed,

performed such labor, in the killing of beasts, and preparing them for burntofferings and sacrifice. Lev. ch. i.

and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

the priests in the temple profane | this meaneth, I will have mercy, the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple.

7 But if ye had known what Numb. xxviii. 9, 10. The Jews were sensible that this kind of labor was forbidden in general terms, though commanded in particular. The Jerusalem Talmud says, that "the servile work, which is done in the holy things, is not servile. The same works, which were done in the temple on other days, were done also on the Sabbath;" and Maimonides, that "there is no sabbatism at all in the temple." See Lightfoot. The argument is,-if the priests may profane the Sabbath, by performing such labor as is positively forbidden in general terms, in order to obey the ritual law, why do you condemn my disciples for the slight labor of plucking a few ears of grain, and rubbing them to separate the chaff, when they do it merely for self-preservation, and to allay their hunger. See a similar argument, John vii. 23.

8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath-day.

9 And when he was departed

on Matt. ix. 13. The meaning is, that
God values holiness of heart and pure
righteousness, more highly than out-
ward obedience to ceremonial or ritual
laws. Sacrifices, not accompanied by
proper dispositions of heart, were by no
means acceptable; but in all places, a
hearty reverence and love, together
with righteous conduct, were approved.
Prov. xv. 8; Acts x. 35. If the Jews
had realized this fact, they would not
have condemned his disciples for a
necessary violation of a ritual law, if
indeed they had violated it; but would
rather have taken shame to themselves
for their own violation of the weightier
matters of the law. Such seems to be
the point of his argument.
"In com-
paring the parts of religion and the
obligation of duties together, those
duties which are of moral and natural
obligation are most valued by God, and
ought to take place of those which
are positive and ritual."-Tillotson.

6. Greater than the temple. In the original, the adjective is neuter, and the phrase would be properly translated, in 8. The Son of man is lord even of this place is something greater than the the Sabbath-day. The meaning of this temple. Yet I doubt not that Jesus declaration is similar to what is imhere referred to himself, by this modest plied in ver. 6. It is an assertion that expression. An instance of the same the Messiah, one of whose titles was Son kind occurs in ver. 41, 42. According of man, was lord of the Sabbath, and to his usual custom, when addressing had authority to determine what might Jews, he rather hinted than asserted his and what might not be done on that Messiahship. He refrained from any day. Yet, even here, he did not dipositive declaration of the fact, but pre-rectly assert that he was the Messiah; sented the most ample evidence, leaving them to judge even of themselves what was right. If the Jews had acknowledged him as the Messiah, they must have admitted his right to alter, or even abrogate, the laws of Moses. And probably he designed this as a hint that, although the act of his disciples might be construed as a violation of the law, yet his permission was their sufficient warrant for so doing. He was greater than the temple, in many respects; in the temple, the presence of God was indicated by a cloud; but he was the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person, Heb. i. 3; and in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col. ii. 9.

7. Mercy and not sacrifice. See note

nor do the Jews seem to have so understood him. They neither saluted him as the Messiah, nor reviled nor attempted to injure him, as on other occasions, on the ground of his assuming too much power and dignity. Yet was he truly Lord of the Sabbath; and his power has been acknowledged by al most all Christians, by conforming to the change, which they believe was indicated by his spirit, both of the day itself, from the seventh to the first of the week, and of its appropriate observances, from physical rest to spiritual activity, from offering bulls and goats, which could not take away sin, to the sacrifice of pure hearts offered in spirit and in truth, which benefits the worshipper while it honors God.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »