Luke 6:1-5

5. A Sabbath Scene: Luke 6:1-5.

The two Sabbath scenes which follow, provoke, at last, the outbreak of the conflict, which, as we have seen, has long been gathering strength. We have already noted several symptoms of the hostility which was beginning to be entertained towards Jesus: Luke 6:14 (for a testimony unto them); Luke 6:21 (he blasphemeth); Luke 6:30-33 (the censure implied in both questions). It is the apparent contempt of Jesus for the ordinance of the Sabbath, which in Luke as well as in John (chap. 5 and 9), alike in Galilee and in Judaea, provokes the outbreak of this latent irritation, and an open rupture between Jesus and the dominant party. Is there not something in this complete parallelism that abundantly compensates for the superficial differences between the synoptical narrative and John's?

Vers. 1-5.

The term second-first is omitted by the Alex. But this omission is condemned by Tischendorf himself. Matthew and Mark presented nothing at all like it, and they did not know what meaning to give to the word, which is found nowhere else in the whole compass of sacred and profane literature. There are half a score explanations of it. Chrysostom supposed that when two festival and Sabbath days followed each other, the first received the name of second-first: the first of the two. This meaning does not give a natural explanation of the expression.

Wetstein and Storr say that the first Sabbath of the first, second, and third months of the year were called first, second, and third; the second-first Sabbath would thus be the first Sabbath of the second month. This meaning, although not very natural, is less forced.

Scaliger thought that, as they reckoned seven Sabbaths from the 16th Nisan, the second day of the Passover feast, to Pentecost, the second-first Sabbath denoted the first of these seven Sabbaths: the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover. This explanation, received by De Wette, Neander, and other moderns, agrees very well with the season when the following scene must have taken place. But the term does not correspond naturally with the idea.

Wieseler supposes that the first Sabbath of each of the seven years which formed a Sabbatic cycle was called first, second, third Sabbath: thus the second-first Sabbath would denote the first Sabbath of the second year of the septenary cycle. This explanation has been favourably received by modern exegesis.

It appears to us, however, less probable than that which Louis Cappel was the first to offer: The civil year of the Israelites commencing in autumn, in the month Tizri (about mid-September to mid-October), and the ecclesiastical year in the month Nisan (about mid-March to mid-April), there were thus every year two first Sabbaths: one at the commencement of the civil year, of which the name would have been first-first; the other at the beginning of the religious year, which would be called second-first. This explanation is very simple in itself, and the form of the Greek term favours it: second-first signifies naturally a first doubled or twice over (bissé).

But there is yet another explanation which appears to us still more probable. Proposed by Selden, it has been reproduced quite lately by Andreae in his excellent article on the day of Jesus' death. When the observers entrusted with the duty of ascertaining the appearance of the new moon, with a view to fixing the first day of the month, did not present themselves before the commission of the Sanhedrim assembled to receive their deposition until after the sacrifice, this day was indeed declared the first of the month, or monthly Sabbath (σάββατον πρῶτον, first Sabbath); but as the time of offering the sacrifice of the new moon was passed, they sanctified the following day, or second of the month (σάββατον δευτεροπρῶτον, second-first Sabbath), as well. This meaning perfectly agrees with the idea naturally expressed by this term (a first twice over), and with the impression it gives of having been taken from the subtleties of the Jewish calendar.

Bleek, ill-satisfied with these various explanations, supposes an interpolation. But why should it have occurred in Luke rather than in Matthew and Mark? Meyer thinks that a copyist had written in the margin πρώτῳ, first, in opposition to ἑτέρῳ, the other (Sabbath), Luke 6:6; that the next copyist, wishing, in consideration of the Sabbath indicated Luke 4:31, to correct this gloss, wrote δευτέρῳ, second, in place of πρώτῳ, first; and that, lastly, from these two glosses together came the word second-first, which has made its way into the text. What a tissue of improbabilities! Holtzmann thinks that Luke had written πρώτῳ, the first, dating from the journey recorded in Luke 4:44, and that in consideration of Luke 4:31 some over-careful corrector added the second; whence our reading. But is not the interval which separates our narrative from Luke 4:44 too great for Luke to have employed the word first in reference to this journey? And what object could he have had in expressing so particularly this quality of first? Lastly, how did the gloss of this copyist find its way into such a large number of documents? Weizsäcker (Unters. p. 59) opposes the two first Sabbaths mentioned in Luke 4:16; Luke 4:33 to the two mentioned here (Luke 6:1; Luke 6:6), and thinks that the name second-first means here the first of the second group. How can any one attribute such absurd trifling to a serious writer! This strange term cannot have been invented by Luke; neither could it have been introduced accidentally by the copyists. Taken evidently from the Jewish vocabulary, it holds its place in Luke, as a witness attesting the originality and antiquity of his sources of information. Further, this precise designation of the Sabbath when the incident took place points to a narrator who witnessed the scene.

From Mark's expression παραπορεύεσθαι, to pass by the side of, it would seem to follow that Jesus was passing along the side of, and not, as Luke says, across the field (διαπορεύεσθαι). But as Mark adds: through the corn, it is clear that he describes two adjacent fields, separated by a path.

The act of the disciples was expressly authorized by the law (Deu 23:25). But it was done on the Sabbath day; there was the grievance. To gather and rub out the ears was to harvest, to grind, to labour! It was an infraction of the thirty-nine articles which the Pharisees had framed into a Sabbatic code. Ψώχοντες, rubbing out, is designedly put at the end of the phrase: this is the labour!

Meyer, pressing the letter of Mark's text, ὅδον ποιεῖν, to make a way, maintains that the disciples were not thinking of eating, but simply wanted to make themselves a passage across the field by plucking the ears of corn. According to him, the middle ποιεῖσθαι, not the active ποιεῖν, would have been necessary for the ordinary sense. He translates, therefore: they cleared a way by plucking (τίλλοντες) the ears of corn (Mark omits ψώχοντες, rubbing them out). He concludes from this that Mark alone has preserved the exact form of the incident, which has been altered in the other two through the influence of the next example, which refers to food. Holtzmann takes advantage of this idea to support the hypothesis of a proto-Mark. But, 1. What traveller would ever think of clearing a passage through a field of wheat by plucking ear after ear? 2. If we were to lay stress on the active ποιεῖν, as Meyer does, it would signify that the disciples made a road for the public, and not for themselves alone; for in this case also the middle would be necessary! The ordinary sense is therefore the only one possible even in Mark, and the critical conclusions in favour of the proto-Mark are without foundation.

The Hebraistic form of Luke's phrase (ἐγένετο... καὶ ἔτιλλον) which is not found in the other two proves that he has a particular document. As to who these accusers were, comp. Luke 5:17-21; Luke 5:30-33.

The word αὐτοῖς, which the Alex. omits, has perhaps been added on account of the plural that follows: Why do ye...?

It follows from this incident that Jesus passed a spring, and consequently a Passover also, in Galilee before His passion. A remarkable coincidence also with the narrative of John (John 6:4).

The illustration taken from 1 Samuel 21 cited in Luke 6:3-4 is very appropriately chosen. Jesus would certainly have had no difficulty in showing that the act of the disciples, although opposed perhaps to the Pharisaic code, was in perfect agreement with the Mosaic commandment. But the discussion, if placed on this ground, might have degenerated into a mere casuistical question; He therefore transfers it to a sphere in which He feels Himself master of the position. The conduct of David rests upon this principle, that in exceptional cases, when a moral obligation clashes with a ceremonial law, the latter ought to yield. And for this reason. The rite is a means, but the moral duty is an end; now, in case of conflict, the end has priority over the means. The absurdity of Pharisaism is just this, that it subordinates the end to the means. It was the duty of the high priest to preserve the life of David and his companions, having regard to their mission, even at the expense of the ritual commandment; for the rite exists for the theocracy, not the theocracy for the rite. Besides, Jesus means to clinch the nail, to show His adversaries and this is the sting of His reply that when it is a question of their own particular advantage (saving a head of cattle for instance), they are ready enough to act in a similar way, sacrificing the rite to what they deem a higher interest (Luke 13:11 et seq.).

De Wette understands οὐδέ in the sense of not even: “Do you not even know the history of your great king?” This sense would come very near to the somewhat ironical turn of Mark: “Have you never read... never once, in the course of your profound biblical studies?” But it appears more simple to explain it as Bleek does: “Have you not also read...? Does not this fact appear in your Bible as well as the ordinance of the Sabbath?” The detail: and to those who were with him, is not distinctly expressed in the O. T.; but whatever Bleek may say, it is implied; David would not have asked for five loaves for himself alone. Jesus mentions it because He wishes to institute a parallel between His apostles and David's followers.

The pron. οὕς does not refer to τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, as in Matthew (the present ἔξεστι does not permit of it), but to ἄρτους, as the object of φαγεῖν… εἰ μή is therefore taken here in its regular sense. It is not so in Matthew, where εἰ μή is used as in Luke 4:26-27. Mark gives the name of the high priest as Abiathar, while according to 1 Sam. it was Ahimelech, his son (comp. 2 Samuel 8:17; 1Ch 18:16), or his father (according to Josephus, Antiq. 6.12. 6). The question is obscure.

In Matthew, Jesus gives a second instance of transgression of the Sabbath, the labour of the priests in the temple on the Sabbath day, in connection with the burnt-offerings and other religious services. If the work of God in the temple liberates man from the law of the Sabbath rest, how much more must the service of Him who is Lord even of the temple raise him to the same liberty!

The Cod. D. and one Mn. here add the following narrative: “The same day, Jesus, seeing a man who was working on the Sabbath, saith to him: O man, if thou knowest what thou art doing, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law.” This narrative is an interpolation similar to that of the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, but with this difference, that the latter is probably the record of a real fact, while the former can only be an invention or a perversion. Nobody could have laboured publicly in Israel on the Sabbath day without being instantly punished; and Jesus, who never permitted Himself the slightest infraction of a true commandment of Moses (whatever interpreters may say about it), certainly would not have authorized this premature emancipation in any one else.

After having treated the question from a legal point of view, Jesus rises to the principle. Even had the apostles broken the Sabbath rest, they would not have sinned; for the Son of man has the disposal of the Sabbath, and they are in His service. We find again here the well-known expression, καὶ ἔλεγεν, and He said to them, the force of which is (see at Luke 6:36): “Besides, I have something more important to tell you.” The Sabbath, as an educational institution, is only to remain until the moral development of mankind, for the sake of which it was instituted, is accomplished. When this end is attained, the means naturally fall into disuse. Now, this moment is reached in the appearance of the Son of man. The normal representative of the race, He is Himself the realization of this end; He is therefore raised above the Sabbath as a means of education; He may consequently modify the form of it, and even, if He think fit, abolish it altogether. Καί : even of the Sabbath, this peculiar property of Jehovah; with how much greater reason, of all the rest of the law!

How can any one maintain, in the face of such a saying as this, that Jesus only assumed the part of the Messiah after the conversation at Caesarea-Philippi (Luke 9:18), and when moved to do so by Peter?

Mark inserts before this declaration one of those short and weighty sayings (he has preserved several of them), which he cannot have invented or added of his own authority, and which the other two Syn. would never have left out, had they made use of his book or of the document of which he availed himself (the proto-Mark): “ The Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. ” God did not create man for the greater glory of the Sabbath, but He ordained the Sabbath for the greater welfare of man. Consequently, whenever the welfare of man and the rest of the Sabbath happen to clash, the Sabbath must yield. So that (ὥστε, Mark 2:28) the Son of man, inasmuch as He is head of the race, has a right to dispose of this institution. This thought, distinctly expressed in Mark, is just what we have had to supply in order to explain the argument in Luke.

Are we authorized to infer from this saying the immediate abolition of every Sabbatic institution in the Christian Church? By no means. Just as, in His declaration, Luke 6:34-35, Jesus announced not the abolition of fasting, but the substitution of a more spiritual for the legal fast, so this saying respecting the Sabbath foreshadows important modifications of the form of this institution, but not its entire abolition. It will cease to be a slavish observance, as in Judaism, and will become the satisfaction of an inward need. Its complete abolition will come to pass only when redeemed mankind shall all have reached the perfect stature of the Son of man. The principle: The Sabbath is made for man, will retain a certain measure of its force as long as this earthly economy shall endure, for which the Sabbath was first established, and to the nature of which it is so thoroughly fitted.