The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1894-10-27

arated the kernels from the husks; and on
this simple food they were making their
breakfast. This was not, we ssume, acct
dental. The disciples had probably pre-
viously designed to so supply themselves
with their breakfast; this entered into their
plan for passing the Sabbath. They in
this strictly conformed to the Mosaic law;
for the law apportioned such sustenance
from standing grain to hungry travellers.
When we, from this distance, see the
disciples thus employed, it may be that the
only suggestion awakened with us is that
the disciples were securing for themselves
but very meagre and inadequate break
fast. They were surely not revealing in
luxury. "The Jews" says Matthew Hen
ry, "made it point of religion to eat
dainty food on Sabbath days. but the dis
ciples were content with anything"
Yet this suggestion seems not to have
occurred to the scribes. They remained
with Jesus, behind the disciples. Pointing
to those who were finding for themselves
such simple Sabbath-repast, the scribes
ask of Jesus "BeAold, ally do they on the
Sabbath day that zOzicA is not AawtuI?
Put the emphasis entirely on the phrase
sabbath day." According to the scribes'
standard of judgment the disciples were
breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees, we
are to remember, had made Sabbath day
of their own. The Mosaic Sabbath was
stern in its prohibitions. The day was de-
signed to be day of rest for all men, for
servants and slaves, for the cattle, even
for the ground from the interfering hand
of man, and it was in Moses time neces-
sary, in establishing such merciful day,
to guard it with a strong hand. The stern
Mosaic prohibitions were designed to eff
fectually lift the Sabbath above the rule of
the world, to make It for man day of rest
and liberty. But the Pharisees, by their
additions to the Mosaic Law, had made of
the Sabbath an oppression. 1t is weari-
some even to read the almost endless list
of their exactions. "The rabbinical rules"
says Lyman Abbott, forbade any approx
imation to labor on the Sabbath. One
might not walk upon the grass because it
would be bruised, which would be a kind
of theshing nor catch flee, which would
be a kind of hunting; nor wear nailed
shoes, which would be a sort of burden;
nor, if he fed his chickens, suffer any corn
to lie upon the ground, lest kernel should
terminate, which would be kind of SOW
ing. And special rule forbade to pluck
the ears of corn, because that would be
kind of reaping. The punishment award
ed by the rabbis for a presumptuous viola
ton of this law was stoning." The rab-
binical law, as Edersheim tells us, included
bbath-desecraton among the heinous
crimes for which man was to be stoned.
For the scribes therefore to charge the
disciples with Sabbath breaking was, by
the standard of their own law, to charge
them with crime with they classified with
murder. They were now also accusing
Jesus, in permitting his disciples thus to
obtain food on the Sabbath, with being
accessory to their crime.
That Jesus, whose mission it was to I'M
do heavy burdens and set captives free,
will aim at the destruction of such tyran-
nical Sabbath, is what we have the right
to expect.
2. The True Sabbath Friendly
to Man,-vs. 25-28.
Jesus reasoned with the scribes on their
own ground. He based his justification
of his disciples on the scriptures, of which
the scribes were the accepted opponents.
Did ys never read, he said, 7Vhat DaVia
did, q0zen he had Heed9 He briefly told
the story of David, of which the record is
left us in Sam. FL: I-6,-a passage which,
the scholars tell us, had but recently, per-
haps that very day, been read as the ap-
pointed lesson in the synagogue service
The story tells US of David fleeing from,
Saul, and in sore hunger entering the tab
not far from Jerusalem, and eating of the
shew-bread and giving it to his followers,
the shew-bread which had been devoted
exclusively to the use of the priests. This
was transgression of the letter of the Levitt
ical Law (Lev. 24:s-o). But Jewish tradi-
ton had indicated David's conduct. In
Davids case it was conceded that ''danger
to life superseded the Sabbath law" Mat
thew tells us that Jesus also adduced the
fact that priests in the temple were break
ing the letter of the Sabbath-law in their
services every Sabbath; yet they were
blameless. Jesus thus penetrated to the
spirit which underlies the Sabbath. He
interpreted the Divinely-appointed day as
in its very nature friendly to man. When,
therefore, the Sabbath is made burden
to man, or an oppression, it is made false
to its own nature.
Jesus then uttered his emancipation
proclamation from the oppression of the
false Sabbath. And it is remarkable that
he does it, as Edersheim tells us, in the
very words of one of the rabbinical laws.
Edersheim finds the old rabbinical law in
this form: "The Sabbath is handed over
to you; not ye are handed over to the Sab
bath" The scribes had wrongly construed
this law as giving them license to change
the Sabbath into an unnatural oppression.
Jesus, in rephrasing their own law, makes
it state the true Divine meaning of the
Sabbath. Tie Sabbath 9VaS made .for
man i; not man for tie Sabbath.
The Sabbath is thus, in its nature,
I friendly IN man