The Disciples in the Corn-Fields

S. Mark ii. 23–28

There are reasons for supposing that it was after the synagogue service on the first Sabbath in the month of May that our Lord went out to walk in the fields, where the harvest was ripening in the Plain of Gennesareth. Perhaps He wished for quiet; but the Pharisees, whose hostility He had aroused, watched which way He went, and followed behind, determined to lose no opportunity of fastening upon Him a charge, to lay before the Sanhedrim. It is not unlikely that their hope on this occasion was, that He might be tempted to exceed the legitimate two thousand cubits, in disregard of the restriction for a Sabbath-day’s journey.

Disappointed, however, in not finding anything against the Master, they attacked His disciples. They were hungry, and plucked some ears of corn by the wayside, and ate them. There was no offence in that: it was no act of theft on their part, for the Law made allowances for such a case: “When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand.”

But though it was no infraction of the Written Law, there was “the hedge” of the Law, the fence which the Rabbis had built up to guard its minutest observance. This they could turn and twist at their will; and they had no difficulty in bringing the disciples’ conduct into court for a breach of it. To pluck the ears of corn was equivalent to reaping; to rub them in their hands was the same as threshing; and to reap and thresh was to engage in prohibited labour on the Sabbath. If then they could make good the charge, and enforce the extreme penalty, like the man who gathered sticks on that holy day, the transgressors might be stoned for the breach. It shows the eagerness with which they were watched, that the instant they began to do it the Pharisees broke in with their remonstrances: “Behold! why do they on the Sabbatlv day that which is not lawful?”

It was the boast of the stricter Jews that they would endure any privation rather than violate that holy day. More than one great defeat and massacre in Jewish history 1 might have been averted if they had not refused on these grounds to draw the sword in defence of their lives.

Jesus at once threw the shield of His protection over His followers. Scorning the petty quibbles with which He was so familiar, He declined to argue as to what constituted labour, and plunged into the general question of Sabbath observance, laying down the principle that no ceremonial ordinance may override man’s good.

With one of those master-strokes which He so often made, He recalled to their minds an illustration from the history of their greatest hero. It is quite possible that it was suggested by the Lesson which they had just heard in the synagogue; if so, we can imagine with what force it must have struck them.

David, in his flight from Saul’s court, halted at the priestly station of Nob on the sides of Mount Olivet. It was the spot where the Tabernacle had found a temporary home during the period of its wanderings before it rested on Mount Zion. Ahimelech or Abiathar (the two names are commonly supposed to represent father and son, but it is possible that they were both borne by one and the same person x) gave him some of the loaves from the Golden Table to satisfy his hunger. It was the most sacred of all food: for while that which was offered in sacrifice might be sold in the shambles, the mystic “Bread of the Face” 2 was eaten by the priests alone, and within the Holy Place. And yet they, the guardians of every religious observance, had not hesitated to divert its use in the exigency of circumstances, and David, the great national saint, had made no scruple of accepting it.

Were the Pharisees prepared to accuse him of sacrilege for so doing? If they were, our Lord might have retorted that they were at issue with the teaching of the old masters of Israel. Had not they said, “It was lawful even to eat that which was sanctified, when another loaf was not within reach, and one was bitten with hunger;” and again, “There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life but idolatry, adultery, and murder “?

But we find from S. Matthew, that He drew a second argument from the Temple ordinances. “What,” He seems to say, “were the multiplied sacrifices, and incense-burnings, and washings, but so many breaches of the letter of the Law? Had they not given birth to the proverb, ‘There is no Sabbatical rest observed in the sanctuary ‘? and yet no one ever thought of blaming the priests.”

And just as under the first illustration there lay the thought that He was David’s Son, and that what was lawful for the father, could not be unlawful for the Son, so by the assertion that there was in that place “One greater than the Temple,” He reminded them “that the Body of the Son of Man was the truest temple of God, and the disciples who ministered to Him were entitled to at least the same privilege as the priests in the Temple at Jerusalem.”

But the real solution of the question lay in the declaration that the day was instituted for the happiness and wellbeing of man, and consequently He in Whom humanity was personified, held control over its observance; “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”

The question has been revived in our own generation: “In what spirit is that day which has superseded the Sabbath to be kept, especially by the working classes?” This no less than the other “was made for man.” Now man, it must be remembered, is a complex creature. He has a tripartite nature, consisting of body, soul, and spirit; and it is necessary to provide for him as such, not ignoring either his physical or his social or his religious needs. All must be kept in view. It is a manifest duty to furnish the masses with the means of bodily recreation, and to draw them from their squalid homes into the pure air which will invigorate the frame.

It is no less a duty to elevate their tastes, to offer them, as far as possible, variety of scene, and that relief from the monotony of labour which the rich man finds in his club or library; but all must be subordinated to the paramount duty of worship. That is due from every creature to the Great Creator. It is that moreover in which he may find his highest enjoyment. No scheme, therefore, which ignores this claim, can possibly carry out the principle laid down by our Lord when He said, “The Sabbath was made for man.”

Note: The synagogue service was held at nine o’clock. The Pharisees would hardly have gone out after Him into the fields before that hour, but nothing is more natural than that they should have followed Him when the congregation separated. The Authorised Version renders it “the second Sabbath after the first,” which is meaningless. A variety of explanations have been offered, viz., that given above (Wetstein); the first Sabbath after the second Paschal Day (Edersheim) appears most probable. It was certainly between Passover and Pentecost. Barley harvest was in the latter half of April, wheat in the first half of May.

Note: Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 2, 3, describes how the Romans under Pompey mercifully respected the Jewish law, and refused to attack till the following day. — Milman, Hist. ii. 2. The Jews however did not always observe the rule. — Wars, ii. 19. 2.

Note: Surely, as there is nothing impossible in the supposition, it is better to accept it than accuse the authors of Chronicles and Samuel of mistake. The absence of the definite article from the best MSS. forbids the translation “in the time of Abiathar (afterwards familiarly known as) the high priest,” as, e.g.” in the house of Simon the leper “— not a leper at the time. Grammatically, as it stands, it can only be “when Abiathar was high priest.”

Note: i.e. Bread laid out in the Presence of God. Our Shewbread is taken from Luther’s translation “Schaubrod.” The table of pure gold is depicted on the Arch of Titus. The Bread was only eaten by those priests who were ceremonially clean.