Chapter VI.
1. And it came to pass on a Sabbath. Above, the Evangelist treated of the calling of the disciples; in this part he treats of their defense, because it belongs to a good shepherd not only to gather the sheep, but also to defend them from wolves. And this part has two sections. In the first he defends them by the testimony of Scripture; in the second, by the miracle of power, at the passage: And it came to pass also on another Sabbath. For Christ himself is "the power of God and the wisdom of God"; whence the disciples called him "Master and Lord," John thirteen; and therefore he first defends as Master through authoritative testimony, and second, as Lord through a miraculous work.
Concerning the first mode of defense, three things are introduced: the first is the occasion of accusing, the second is the opposition to the accusation, the third is the refutation of the accusers.
2. (Verse 1). The occasion of accusing was therefore given by the necessity of the disciples, on account of which they were plucking ears of grain on the Sabbaths. And he notes this when he says: It came to pass on the second-first Sabbath, that is, second from the first, that is, immediately following the preceding Sabbath, concerning which it was treated above in chapter four, on which he cured the demoniac. Or, as Chrysostom says, on the second-first Sabbath, that is, twice first or principal, on account of the double solemnity coinciding, because the Sabbath was in itself a solemnity, and also by reason of the New Moon, which was then occurring. Or according to Bede, second-first is one compound expression from a whole and a corrupted word, so that secondly first is said, that is, secondly preeminent, that is, higher and more worthy than that legal Sabbath, because already then the new Sabbath was beginning, on which one must rest from vices, not from necessary works.
3. And this is clear through the example of the disciples themselves, concerning whom it is added: As he passed through the grain fields: he was passing through, namely Christ himself, because he was a wayfarer: whence Acts 10: "He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed." Moreover, in his passing through he signifies that all these things are transitory, according to that word of Matthew 24: "Heaven and earth shall pass away." He was passing through, however, not remaining, and his disciples likewise, so that they too might acknowledge this, because "we have not here a lasting city," Hebrews last chapter. - But because, in passing through these things, we ought not to linger, but need to be sustained, therefore he adds: His disciples were plucking ears of grain and eating them, rubbing them in their hands: they were plucking, that is, pulling off, tearing them from the stalk, according to what is said in Amos 7: "I am a herdsman, plucking sycamores." They were plucking, he says, not reaping, because the former was permitted according to the Law, the latter was forbidden: Deuteronomy 23: "If you enter the standing grain of your friend, you may break off the ears and rub them with your hands, but you shall not reap with a sickle." And indeed they were doing this, compelled by the necessity of hunger, just as, in Matthew 12, "his disciples, being hungry, began to pluck ears of grain and to eat." Nor is this surprising, because, Proverbs 27, "the hungry soul will take the bitter for sweet"; and Job 6: "The things which my soul refused to touch are now, because of distress, my food."
4. Whence human necessity excused them, which compelled them to do this; and Bede assigns this reason: "The disciples," he says, "not having opportunity to eat because of the pressing of the crowds, were hungry as men, but by plucking ears of grain they alleviated their hunger." - Another reason is the necessity of assumed poverty, by which they were destitute, so that they did not even have bread in sufficient measure: whence the Apostle in Second Corinthians 11: "In hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness."
The third reason is the example of austerity, by which they taught us, as Ambrose says, "to seek not prepared dishes, but simple foods"; Isaiah 30: "The Lord will give you bread of affliction and water of scarcity." - The fourth is, that they might show that we ought to observe the legal Sabbath not according to the letter, but spiritually, against heretics who would come after: Hebrews 4: "There remains a sabbath rest for the people of God."
The fifth reason is spiritual understanding. For by the Sabbath is understood the repose of divine contemplation: Isaiah 58: "You shall call the Sabbath of the Lord a delight." The ears of grain are foretastes of interior sweetness, which are mingled with hardships, and therefore they are rubbed in the hands, so that the pure grain may be extracted, just as Ruth, who "gathered the ears of grain remaining behind the backs of the reapers."
The sixth reason is on the part of the sweetness of the word of Christ, by which, powerfully enticed, they forget to eat: whence the Psalm: "How sweet are your words to my palate, sweeter than honey to my mouth"; and John 6: "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
5. (Verse 2.). The perversity of the Pharisees brought forward the objection of accusation, by which they gladly assailed the disciples. Which he notes when he adds: But certain Pharisees said to them: Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbaths ? Because it was commanded in the Law, in Exodus 16 and 35 and Leviticus 23, that the Sabbath be observed most diligently. And therefore they accused them as transgressors of the divine law, just as their Master: John 9: "This man is not from God, who does not keep the Sabbath." Whence they considered them worthy of death, because, according to that passage in Hebrews 10, "whoever violates the Law of Moses dies without any mercy under two or three witnesses," and especially with regard to the commandment concerning the Sabbath, which was to be observed above all: whence he who was found gathering wood on the Sabbath was killed, as is said in Numbers 15: "Let this man die the death; let the whole multitude overwhelm him with stones outside the camp."
6. Now this accusation came partly from ignorance of the Law, partly from pride of mind, partly from the pretense of hypocrisy, partly from the superstition of tradition. — From ignorance of the Law, because what was prohibited was not the taking of what was necessary, but servile work. And therefore to such persons it is said in Matthew 22: "You err, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God."
From pride of mind, because they despised others, as is said below in chapter 18 concerning the Pharisee who boasted of himself: "I give you thanks, O God, that I am not like the rest of men"; Romans 10: "Being ignorant of the justice of God and seeking to establish their own, they are not subject to the justice of God."
From the pretense of hypocrisy, according to that passage in Matthew 23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, who tithe mint and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law."
From the superstition of tradition, in which they placed greater force than in the Law: whence it is said to them in Matthew 15: "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Now this accusation came chiefly from ignorance of the Law, from which the perversity of the Pharisees was inflamed.
7. (Vers. 3.). Now the authority of Truth subjoined the confutation of the accusers, and he notes this when he adds: And Jesus answering them, said. Now Truth confounds the Pharisees and defends the disciples by the authority of Scripture and also by his own. - By the authority of Scripture he shows that the commandment concerning the Sabbath did not bind in a case of necessity: and this he shows by the example of David, which he intimates when he says: Have you not read this? and if you have read it, you have not understood: Job 4 : " Because no one understands, they perish forever "; or if you have read it, you have not remembered, according to that of Ezekiel 7: " The Law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from his elders ", as if to say: you, who are zealots of the Law, ought to have read, not to be ignorant, lest that of John 3 could be said to you: "You are a teacher in Israel, and you do not know these things"? And truly they ought to have read it, because the deed was very notable, namely what David did, when he himself was hungry and those who were with him.
But the contrary of this saying seems to appear in 1 Kings 21: " Why have you come alone, and no one is with you "? But it says that because he did not have a noble company, since he was "the king's son-in-law " and a great prince. Whence it is added in the same place that " the vessels of the young men were holy". Therefore he had company, although not so great or notable: and those were his companions in the deed, so that they cannot say that it was done on account of a special privilege.
8. (Vers. 4.). Whence he adds: How he entered into the house of God, that is, into the tabernacle, because the house of God, that is, the temple, had not yet been built: 1 Chronicles 17 : " You shall not build me a house to dwell in. For I have not remained in a house from the time I brought Israel out of Egypt even to this day ".
Nor did he merely enter into the house, that is, the tabernacle, but, what is more, he took the loaves of proposition, took them namely from the priest, and ate. And concerning these loaves, Exodus 25: " You shall set the loaves of proposition upon the table in my sight always ", which are therefore called of proposition because on each Sabbath they were set upon the table.
And what is more: He himself ate and those who were with him , as it is said in 1 Kings 21: " The priest gave David hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but only the loaves of proposition ", against the Law: whence he adds: Which it was not lawful to eat except for the priests alone; whence it is said in Leviticus 22, that "even the sojourner of a priest and a hireling were not to eat of the sanctified things ". But in Leviticus 24 it is said concerning the loaves of proposition, that they were "for Aaron and his sons, that they might eat them in the holy place, because it is a most holy thing by an everlasting covenant ". If therefore David did not sin, because necessity excused him from that precept, likewise also these who are compelled by necessity are not to be reproved, because they are excused by the necessity of hunger.
9. (Vers. 5.). And lest anything be lacking to the authority of Scripture, he subjoins his own authority, by which he both willed and was able to grant them a dispensation. Which he indicates when he adds: And he said to them, that the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. Now he calls himself the Son of man with respect to the humility of the humanity assumed, and he declares himself Lord of the Sabbath and of the Law with respect to the sublimity of the hidden Divinity: whence in Apocalypse 19 it is said that "he had on his garment and on his thigh written: King of kings and Lord of lords." And therefore it is said in the Psalm: "You have subjected all things under his feet"; this is said of the Son of man "made a little lower than the Angels" on account of the ignominy of the passion. And therefore as Lord he granted them a dispensation for a time, he who was afterwards to take away the observance of it.
10. It came to pass on another Sabbath etc. Above he defended the disciples as Master by the authority of Scripture or by testimony; here he defends as Lord by the power of might in a miracle, in which, by healing a man on the Sabbath, he showed that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and that it is not necessary to abstain from every work on the Sabbath, but only from evil. Concerning the description of this miracle, three things are intimated: the first is the opportunity of the miraculous work; the second is the sublimity of the wondrous worker, at the words: But he himself knew their thoughts: the third is the perversity of the wretched people, at the words: But they were filled with madness.
As for the opportunity of the miraculous work, it should be noted that it is gathered from three things, namely from the confirmation of his own doctrine, from the regard for human misery and from the confutation of Jewish perfidy. The first belonged to wisdom, the second to clemency, the third to justice, which are in Christ the Almighty.
11. (Vers. 6.). Therefore first his own doctrine was to be confirmed, which he was proclaiming on the Sabbaths: on account of which he says: And it came to pass also on another Sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: because, as John 18 says, "I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together"; because that word of Isaiah 54 was to be fulfilled in Christ: "I will make all your children taught by the Lord." Whence this was the one of whom Ecclesiasticus 39 says: "He himself will make known the discipline of his doctrine and will glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord." For he was teaching justice, which is the common virtue; whence Hosea 10: "It is the time to seek the Lord, when he shall come who will teach you justice."
12. Human misery was to be relieved on account of the deprivation of infirmity, by reason of which he says: And there was a man there, and his right hand was withered: and thus he was unfit for all works, because he had lost his stronger hand and better member. Whence truly this man was that one of whom Job 14 says that "living for a short time, he is filled with many miseries." Whence already in this man was fulfilled that word of Zechariah 11: "His right arm shall be dried up with withering"; and therefore he could already groan and say to the Lord: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd"; and for this reason it was to be relieved through divine power.