Homilies on Matthew, Homily 39

“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath day; and His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.” But Luke says, “On a double Sabbath.” Now what is a double Sabbath? When there are two reasons for resting from work: both the regular Sabbath and another feast that falls on it. For they call every rest from work a sabbath. But why did He who knew everything beforehand lead them that way, unless He wanted the Sabbath to be broken? He did want this, but not arbitrarily; that is why He never breaks it without a reason, but offers reasonable grounds, so that He could both bring the law to an end and avoid startling them. But there are occasions when He even repeals it directly, without such qualifications: as when He anoints the blind man’s eyes with clay; as when He says, “My Father has been working until now, and I work.” He acts in one way to glorify His own Father, and in the other to accommodate the weakness of the Jews. He is working toward this last aim here, appealing to natural necessity, although in cases of acknowledged sins this could, of course, never be an excuse. For a murderer cannot plead his anger, nor can an adulterer cite his lust, or offer any other excuse; but here, by mentioning their hunger, He freed them from all blame. But please admire the disciples: how completely they control themselves and disregard bodily concerns, treating the table that feeds the flesh as secondary, and although they struggle with constant hunger, they still do not leave Him. For unless hunger had pressed them hard, they would not have done even this much. What, then, do the Pharisees do? “When they saw it,” the text says, “they said to Him, Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath day.” Here they do not speak very fiercely (though that certainly would have been consistent with their character); nevertheless, they are not violently provoked but simply find fault. But when He stretched out the withered hand and healed it, they became so furious that they even plotted together to kill and destroy Him. For where nothing great and noble is done, they are calm; but where they see anyone healed, they become savage and work themselves into a rage, and no one is as intolerable as they are: they are such enemies of human salvation. How, then, does Jesus defend His disciples? “Have you not read,” He says, “what David did in the temple, when he was hungry, both he and all those with him? How he entered the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests?” So, when pleading for His disciples, He brings forward David; for Himself, He brings forward the Father. And notice His reproachful manner: “Have you not read what David did?” For that prophet’s glory was indeed so great that Peter, too, later pleaded with the Jews in these words: “Let me speak freely to you about the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried.” But why does He not call him by his title, either on this occasion or later? Perhaps because He was descended from him. Now if they had been fair-minded people, He would have directed His discussion to the disciples’ suffering from hunger; but because they were hateful and inhuman, He instead recounts a historical event to them. But Mark says, “In the days of Abiathar the High Priest,” not contradicting the history, but implying that he had two names; and he adds that “he gave to him,” indicating that here too David had a strong defense, since even the priest himself allowed him to do it; and not only allowed it, but even served him. For do not tell me that David was a prophet, since even that did not make it lawful: the privilege belonged to the priests. That is why He also added, “but only for the priests.” For even if he were a prophet ten thousand times over, he was still not a priest; and although he himself was a prophet, those with him were not, since we know that he gave some to them too. “What then,” someone might say, “were they all on the same level as David?” Why talk to me about rank where there seems to be a violation of the law, even if natural necessity compels it? Yes, and in this way too He has cleared them of the charges even more completely, since someone greater is found to have done the same thing. “And what does this have to do with the question?” someone may say. “For surely it was not the Sabbath that he violated?” You are pointing out something greater, which especially shows Christ’s wisdom: setting aside the Sabbath, He brings forward another example greater than the Sabbath. For violating a day is by no means the same as touching that holy table, which no one was permitted to touch. The Sabbath has indeed been violated, and often; in fact, it is continually violated, both by circumcision and by many other works; and at Jericho too one can see that the same thing happened. But this happened only then. So He does more than win the argument. How, then, did no one blame David, although there was yet another, heavier charge than this: the murder of the priests, which arose from it? But He does not mention it, because He is concentrating only on the subject at hand. 2. Afterward He refutes the charge in another way as well. For just as He first brought in David, using that person’s dignity to subdue their pride, so, after He had silenced them and put down their boasting, He also adds the more directly relevant rebuttal. And what is it? “Do you not know that in the temple the priests profane the Sabbath and are blameless?” For in that other instance, He says, the emergency allowed the restriction to be relaxed, but here it is relaxed even without an emergency. He did not, however, refute them this way immediately, but first argued that the act could be allowed, and afterward pressed His argument further. For it was fitting to draw the stronger conclusion last, although the earlier argument, of course, also carried its own weight. For do not tell me that bringing forward someone else who commits the same sin does not free a person from blame. For when the person who acts incurs no blame, the act he has undertaken becomes a precedent others can appeal to. Nevertheless, He was not satisfied with this, but also adds something more decisive, saying that the deed is no sin at all. This, more than anything, was the sign of a glorious victory: to point to the law repealing itself, and doing so in two ways, first through the place, then through the Sabbath; or rather, even in three ways, since the work being done is twofold, and another factor accompanies it: it is done by the priests. And what is more, it is not even held against them. “For they,” He says, “are blameless.” Do you see how many points He has stated? The place, for He says, “In the temple”; the people, for they are “the priests”; the time, for He says, “the Sabbath”; the act itself, for “they profane” (He did not say, “they break,” but something more serious, “they profane”); and that they not only escape punishment but are even free from blame, “for they,” He says, “are blameless.” So do not consider this like the earlier instance, He says. For that was done only once, by someone who was not a priest, and out of necessity; that is why they deserved to be excused. But this is done every Sabbath, by priests, in the temple, and according to the law. And so, again, they are cleared of the charges through the law, rather than through a favor. For I did not speak this way to blame them, He says, nor to free them from blame by showing indulgence, but on the principle of justice. And He seems to be defending them, but it is His disciples whom He is clearing of the alleged faults. For when He says, “those are blameless,” He means, “these are even more so.” “But they are not priests.” Indeed, they are greater than priests. For the Lord of the temple Himself is here: the truth, not the type. That is why He also said, “But I say to you that someone greater than the temple is here.” Nevertheless, although they heard such great sayings, they made no reply, for human salvation was not their aim. Then, because this would seem harsh to His hearers, He quickly draws a veil over it, giving His words a gentler turn, as before, yet still expressing Himself with a rebuke. “But if you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless.” Do you see how He again turns His speech toward gentleness, yet again shows them to be beyond its reach? “For you would not have condemned,” He says, “the guiltless.” Before, He drew the same conclusion from what is said about the priests, in the words, “they are guiltless”; but here He states it on His own authority. Or rather, this too comes from the law, for He was quoting a prophetic saying. 3. After this He also mentions another reason: “For the Son of man,” He says, “is Lord of the Sabbath day,” speaking of Himself. But Mark reports that He said this about our shared human nature as well, for He said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Why, then, was the man gathering sticks punished? Because if the laws were treated with contempt even at the beginning, they would, of course, hardly be observed afterward. For the Sabbath did at first bring many great benefits. For example, it made them gentle and humane toward the members of their households; it taught them about God’s providence and the creation, as Ezekiel says; it gradually trained them to refrain from wickedness and encouraged them to attend to the things of the Spirit. For they could not have handled it if, when giving the law for the Sabbath, He had said, “Do your good works on the Sabbath, but do not do evil works.” That is why He restrained them from all works alike, for He says, “You must do nothing at all”; and even this did not keep them in order. But He Himself, in the very act of giving the Sabbath law, already hinted that He wanted them to refrain only from evil works, by saying, “You must do no work, except what is done to sustain your life.” And in the temple too everything continued, with greater diligence and twice the labor. So even through the shadow itself He was secretly revealing the truth to them. Did Christ, then, someone will say, repeal something so beneficial? Far from it; indeed, He greatly increased its value. For it was time for them to be trained in everything by higher standards, and there was no need for someone freed from wickedness and given wings for every good work to have his hands bound; or for people to learn by this means that God made all things; or for those called to imitate God’s own love for humanity to be made gentle in this way (for He says, “Be merciful, as your Heavenly Father”); or for those commanded to celebrate a feast all their lives to make one day a festival (“For let us keep the feast,” the text says, “not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”). Nor do those who have the very Lord of all dwelling with them need to stand beside an ark and a golden altar, since they commune with Him in everything: through prayer, offerings, the scriptures, giving alms, and having Him within them. Look, then: why does someone who is always keeping the feast, whose way of life is in Heaven, need any Sabbath? 4. Let us, then, keep the feast continually and do nothing evil, for this is a feast. Let us intensify our spiritual concerns while our earthly concerns give way, and let us take a spiritual rest, keeping our hands from greed and withdrawing our bodies from unnecessary and unprofitable labor, such as the Hebrew people endured long ago in Egypt. For there is no difference between us who gather gold and those who were held in bondage in the mud, working on those bricks, gathering stubble, and being beaten. Yes, for even now the devil orders us to make bricks, as Pharaoh did then. For what else is gold but mud? And what else is silver but stubble? Like stubble, at least, it kindles the flame of desire; and like mud, gold defiles the person who possesses it. That is why He sent us His Son from Heaven, rather than Moses from the wilderness. If, then, after He has come, you remain in Egypt, you will suffer with the Egyptians; but if you leave that land and go up with the spiritual Israel, you will see all the miracles. Yet even this is not enough for salvation. For we must not only be delivered from Egypt; we must also enter into the promise. For the Jews too, as Paul says, passed through the Red Sea, ate manna, and drank spiritual drink, but nevertheless they all perished. So, to keep the same thing from happening to us, let us not delay or draw back. But when you hear wicked spies even now giving a bad report about the constricted and narrow way and saying the same kinds of things as those ancient spies, let us take as our examples Joshua and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, rather than the multitude; and do not give up until you have attained the promise and entered the Heavens. And do not consider the journey difficult. “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, much more, now that we are reconciled, will we be saved.” “But this way,” someone will say, “is constricted and narrow.” True, but the earlier way, through which you have come, is not only constricted and narrow, but even impassable and full of savage wild beasts. And just as there was no crossing the Red Sea unless that miracle had been performed, so we too could not have gone up into Heaven while remaining in our former life, but only through the intervention of baptism. Now if the impossible has become possible, much more will the difficult become easy. “But that,” someone will say, “was by grace alone.” Why, that is precisely why you have good reason to take courage. For if He worked with you where there was grace alone, will He not help you much more where you also do hard work? If He saved you when you did nothing, will He not help you much more when you work? Earlier I was saying that what was impossible should give you courage about what is difficult as well; but now I add this: if we are vigilant, these things will not even be difficult. For consider this: death is trampled underfoot, the devil has fallen, the law of sin is extinguished, the grace of the Spirit is given, life is compressed into a short span, and the heavy burdens are reduced. And to convince you of this through actual results, see how many have gone beyond Christ’s commands; and are you afraid of simply meeting them? What defense will you have, then, when others are leaping beyond the boundaries, while you yourself are too lazy to do what is commanded? Thus, we urge you to give alms from what you have, but someone else has stripped himself of all his possessions. We require you to live chastely with your wife, but someone else has not even entered into marriage. And we ask you not to be envious, but we find someone else giving up even his own life out of love. Again, we ask you to be lenient in your judgments and not harsh toward those who sin, but someone else, even when struck, has also turned the other cheek. What, then, I ask you, will we say? What excuse will we make for failing to do even these things, when others go so far beyond us? And they would not have gone beyond us if it had not been very easy. For who wastes away: someone who envies other people’s blessings, or someone who takes pleasure in them and rejoices with them? Who views everything with suspicion and constant fear: the chaste man or the adulterer? Who is cheered by good hopes: someone who plunders by violence, or someone who shows mercy and shares what he has with those in need? Let us, then, keep these things in mind and not grow sluggish in our race toward virtue. Instead, let us eagerly strip down for these glorious wrestling matches and labor for a little while, so that we may win the everlasting and imperishable crowns. May we all attain them, by the grace and love for humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen.