Matthew 12:1

1. began to pluck the ears of corn] The Pharisees, who seem to have been watching their opportunity, make the objection as soon as the disciples began what by Pharisaic rules was an unlawful act.

Ch. Mat_12:1-13. The Observance of the Sabbath

1. The disciples pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath. 2. A man with a withered hand cured on the Sabbath.

St Mar_2:23-28; Mar_3:1-5; St Luk_6:1-11.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:1-8. The account contained in these verses is also recorded in Mar 2:23-28, and Luk 6:1-5.

At that time - Luke Luk 6:1 fixes the time more particularly. He says that it was “the second Sabbath after the first.” To understand this, it is proper to remark that the “Passover” was observed during the month “Abib,” or Nisan, answering to the latter part of March and the first of April. The feast was held seven days, commencing on the fourteenth day of the month Exo. 12:1-28; Exo 23:15, on the “second” day of the paschal week. The law required that a sheaf of “barley” should be offered up as the first-fruits of the harvest, Lev 23:10-11. From this day was reckoned seven weeks to the feast of “Pentecost” Lev 23:15-16, called also the feast of weeks Deu 16:10, and the feast of the harvest, Exo 23:16. This second day in the feast of the Passover, or of unleavened bread, was the beginning, therefore, from which they reckoned toward the Pentecost. The Sabbath in the week following would be the “second Sabbath” after this first one in the reckoning, and this was doubtless the time mentioned when Christ went through the fields. It should be further mentioned, that in Judea the barley harvest commences about the beginning of May, and both that and the wheat harvest are over by the twentieth. Barley is in full ear in the beginning of April. There is no improbability, therefore, in this narrative on account of the season of the year. This feast was always held at Jerusalem.

Through the corn - Through the “barley,” or “wheat.” The word “corn,” as used in our translation of the Bible, has no reference to “maize,” or “Indian corn,” as it has with us. Indian corn was unknown until the discovery of America, and it is scarcely probable that the translators knew anything about it. The word “corn” was applied, as it is still in England, to wheat, rye, oats, and barley. This explains the circumstance that they “rubbed it in their hands” Luk 6:1 to separate the grain from the chaff.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Mat_12:1-6

Behold Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.

1. It is no new thing to see men who are otherwise learned, and are in account for their holiness in the church, to be adversaries unto Christ, and His disciples.

2. Christs disciples readily shall be misconstrued, do what they please; their plucking ears of corn for their hunger doth not escape censure.

3. Hypocrites do urge ceremonies and external observations more than the greater things of the law.

4. When the mind of the Lawgiver and the intent of the commandment is not contravened, the precept is not broken, this is the ground of Christs defence.

5. Not reading nor considering the Scriptures, whereby the meaning of the law may be understood, is the cause of error in duties.

6. Whatsoever bodily work is necessary for providing of the service and worship of God upon the Sabbath is not a breaking of the Sabbath; for the priests did bodily work in the temple on the Sabbath day, and were blameless.

7. As the body is above the figure, or shadow, so is Christ greater than the temple. (David Dikson.)

The observance of the Sabbath

Christ came not to abolish the Sabbath, but to explain and enforce it, as He did the rest of the law. Its observance was nowhere positively enjoined by Him, because Christianity was to be practicable to all nations, and it goes to them stripped of its precise and various circumstances. I was in the Spirit on the Lords day, seems to be the soul of the Christian Sabbath. In this view of the day, a thousand frivolous questions concerning its observance would be answered. We are going to spend a Sabbath in eternity. The Christian will acquire as much of the Sabbath-spirit as he can. And, in proportion to a mans real piety in every age of the Church, he will be found to Lave been a diligent observer of the Sabbath day. (Cecils Remanis.)

The Sabbath a day doing good

The performance of so many miracles on the Sabbath day seems to intimate its being the most acceptable time for our doing good to the souls and bodies of men, after the pattern of Christs example, as we have opportunity. And it is this perhaps, that may especially expose us to the unkind remarks of those who make the Lords day a day of mere Pharisaic formalities, or one of idle and selfish indulgence, by doing their own way, by finding their own pleasure, and by speaking their own words. (J. Ford.)

Rabbinical Sabbath scruples

The Rabbi Kolonimos was innocently accused of having murdered a boy. It appears that he knew the assassin, and to prevent himself being torn to pieces, he wrote the name of the culprit on a piece of paper, and laid it upon the lips of the corpse. By this means the rabbi saved his own life, and the real murderer was exposed. But, alas! Kolonimos had written that name on the Sabbath day, and he spent the rest of his life in penance. Not content with this long atonement for his sin, the rabbi gave orders that for one hundred years after his death, every one who passed by should fling a stone at his tomb, because every one who profaned the Sabbath ought to be stoned.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:1. Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn — The cornfields near Jerusalem, attended by his disciples and some of the Pharisees, whose curiosity, it is probable, prompted them to mix with the crowd on this occasion, in expectation of seeing more miracles. His disciples began to pluck [and rub in their hands, Luk 6:1] the ears of corn, and to eat — Just what sufficed for present necessity. The word σταχυας, here used, may indifferently signify ears of any kind of grain; but probably barley is here intended, that being first ripe in those parts. Dried corn was a common food among the Jews.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 33. — PLUCKING THE CORN UPON THE SABBATH, Mat_12:1-8.

Of this chapter the part 1-45 has a considerable completeness in itself. It is not inserted precisely in its chronological place; but the facts, though distant in time, stand in their chronological order, and are grouped together in order to show the deepening hostility which Jesus encountered from the Jewish religious leaders. The first two (§ 33 and § 34) occurred soon after the first assault upon Jesus at the passover, and were the proper prelude to the later instance of blasphemy in § 42, with its fearful denunciation, and the cavil of § 43, with its terrible parable. There is a marked increase in the intensity of the Pharisaic hostility.

Matthew places together these two miracles, not because occurring at the same time, but because they touched upon the same point, namely, our Lord’s teaching as to the Sabbath.

Mr. Trench remarks:

“The cures on the Sabbath actually recorded are seven in number, and are the following: That of the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum, (Mar_1:21;) that of Simon’s wife’s mother, (Mar_1:29;) of the impotent man of Bethesda, (Joh_5:9;) of the man with the withered hand; of the man born blind, (Joh_9:14;) of the woman with a spirit of infirmity, (Luk_13:14;) of the man who had the dropsy, (Luk_14:2.) We have a general intimation of many more, as at Mar_1:34, and have already observed that the ‘one work’ to which our Lord alludes at Joh_7:21-23, is perhaps not any of the miracles which he has recorded at length, but one to which we have no other allusion than that contained in these verses.”

Our Lord’s defence of himself for these miracles of mercy on the Sabbath brings from him the enunciation of the great principle, that positive and ceremonial institutions were really established for the highest good of man, and must give way whenever they come in collision with it.

1. At that time — Just after the second passover of Jesus’s ministry. Commentators consider the time of this miracle as being fixed by the parallel passage in Luk_6:1. Luke says it was on the second Sabbath after the first. This peculiar phrase literally interpreted would be “the second-first Sabbath,” which is thus explained: From passover to Pentecost was seven weeks. The customary reckoning of these seven weeks was from the second day after the passover, and the first Sabbath after this second day was called the second-first Sabbath. The passover was in April; a time not too early for the ripening of the barley fields in the better parts of Palestine. The corn — The word corn suggests to an American reader incorrectly the idea of what is called Indian corn, or maize. The word in the text is used in the purely English sense of grain — including wheat, rye, or barley.

Dr. Thomson remarks:

“I have often seen my muleteers, as we passed along the wheat fields, pluck off ears, rub them in their hands, and eat the grains, unroasted, just as the apostles are said to have done. This is allowable. The Pharisees did not object to the thing itself, only to the time when it was done.”

It was lawful to pluck the ears, but not to apply the sickle in the standing corn of one’s neighbour. Deu_23:25.

1. That the Messiah should come from God, as his minister and servant. 2. That his own personal character should be of the most mild and gentle kind. 3. He should be most tender in his dealings. 4. He should give victory to truth and righteousness in the world. 5. That not only Jews, but Gentiles should trust in his name.

This prophecy, be it remembered, was delivered centuries before our Lord’s birth, and was applied by the early Jews to the coming of the Messiah.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_12:1. Pluck the ears of corn.—See Deu_23:25.

Mat_12:3. What David did.—David’s action was not an apparent contravention of the Sabbath-law, but an apparent contravention of the temple or tabernacle-law. But our Lord reasons from equals to equals, or, on the principle of equivalents. The temple and the Sabbath were equivalent or equal in sanctity (Morison).

Mat_12:4. Did eat the shewbread.—The old bread that was removed on the Sabbath morning from the golden table to make way for the fresh loaves (Lev_24:5-9; 1Sa_21:6).

Mat_12:5. Profane the Sabbath.—Viz. when they do the work of the temple; in removing, e.g. the old shewbread and replacing it with the “hot,” and in offering up the sacrificial lambs, etc. It was, indeed, one of the sayings of the Rabbins, “There is no Sabbath-keeping in the temple.” Thus, if all work on the Sabbath “profaned” the Sabbath, as the Pharisees maintained, the priests were guilty of continual profanation (Morison).

Mat_12:7. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.—Moral and not positive duties, these made up the true life of religion, and were alone acceptable to God. It was because they had inverted the right relation of the two that they had, in this instance, condemned those whom our Lord now declares to have been in this respect absolutely guiltless (Plumptre).

Mat_12:8. Lord even of the Sabbath day.—A prophetic intimation cleared up by the event, that the law of the Sabbath would be changed, as it has now been under the gospel, not by any alteration in the proportion of time due to God, but in the position of the day; by the transfer of it from the seventh day of the week to the first, in memory of the resurrection of the Son of man (Wordsworth).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_12:1-8

Sabbatical needs.—The strife and opposition of the last chapter seem to be continued in this. Animated probably by what we are told of there, certain Pharisees here come forward to make an attack in words on the Saviour of mankind. That attack itself, in the first place; the reply it received at the time; the instruction it afterwards led to, are the main features of the story which follows.

I. The attack itself.—The occasion of this was the action of the disciples when walking with their Master on one particular Sabbath-day through the “cornfields.” “Being hungered”—a point specially noted—they plucked a portion of the standing corn as they passed; and “rubbing it in their hands,” (Luk_6:1), ate the grain obtained in this way. Although such use of the corn was expressly sanctioned in Deu_23:25, the “plucking” and “rubbing” necessary for this purpose were considered by the Pharisees to be sufficiently near to “reaping” and “threshing” to constitute them “secondary” violations of the fourth commandment. They, therefore, accused His disciples unto Him of having so done (Mat_12:2). Nothing is said of the fact that the disciples were hungry; nothing of the fact (for so it seems to have been) that the disciples only had thus partaken of corn; all the supposed blame of all done, is virtually charged upon Him. “Why is it that Thou dost thus permit Thy disciples to do what ought not to be done?”

II. The primary reply to this attack corresponded to it in every respect. It did so as to persons. Only the disciples had been avowedly blamed. Only the disciples are avowedly defended. It did so as to purport. What the question implied was that they had broken the law and were guilty. What the reply implied was that they were “guiltless” (end of Mat_12:7), and had not broken the law. It did so, also, as to method of proof. The Pharisees had aimed at their point by appealing tacitly to a method of interpreting the law, which certain later Israelites among themselves had designed and invented. According to this way of interpretation, it was breaking the law even for a hungry man to do anything which could be considered even an approach to such things as “reaping” and “threshing” on the Sabbath day. The Saviour, in this reply, therefore, appealed in turn to other methods of understanding the law. Notably, on the one hand, to that adopted in one particular case, where one of the most pious and revered of their ancestors, David the king, with the full sanction of the priests of his day (1Sa_21:3-6), had done exactly as had been done now by the disciples of Christ, viz., set aside a strict ceremonial observance where it was necessary to do so for the preservation of life. Also, on the other hand, to the interpretation practically adopted in a whole collection of cases of a similar kind, as when the “priests in the temple, e.g. the acknowledged examples and guides of the people in the interpretation of the law, constantly did that in the discharge of their duties, under the law, which “profaned the Sabbath” in fact, and which yet, being necessary, was not considered to profane it in law. In all these, and that of David before, the obvious principle was that that is not to be regarded as rebellion which cannot be avoided. Exactly the same principle applied to—and cleared—the disciples.

III. The further instruction.—Although these most legitimate tu quoques had thus fully silenced the accusers of the disciples, they had not been equally successful in instructing the disciples themselves. They had only shown, as it were, the negative side, viz., that it was neither right nor necessary to insist rigorously on the absolute letter of the law. For the sake of His disciples, therefore, in the first instance—and not without an eye in all probability to many others in subsequent years—the Saviour adds what we may consider a few words in briefest outline, on the positive side of the matter. If not in the mere letter, how then were God’s ordinances to be observed? On this question He appears to give a short succession of rules. The first rule is to look upon it as a question of degree. The physical life of man is a greater thing in itself than the mere physical rest of the Sabbath. So also were the positive enactments of the temple service. “There was one”—there was “that” (R. V., both statements are true)—which was “greater” than these. They must carry that principle out. The question must be settled by reference to that “greatest” of all. The second rule was to look upon the point to be settled as being also a question of kind. How were they to determine the relative greatness of an appointment? By its relative capacity for effecting the good purpose of God. What God had in view in His ordinances about men was their welfare, not their injury; their profit, not their loss; increasing their happiness, not merely restricting their liberty; “showing mercy” towards them, rather than exacting “sacrifice” from them. Let them judge accordingly, therefore, in regard to all His ordinances on this question of “greater” and “less.” That was the truest method of observance which corresponded most truly to the merciful objects in view. Lastly, let them consider to whom both these principles would conduct them at last. Who was this “greater than” the “temple?” This greatest of all? Who but the Saviour Himself of whom and of whose work all these were but shadows and types? And why was He, in this way, the greatest of all? Because He was, in Himself and His work, the very embodiment, and secret, and seal of all God’s fullest purposes of mercy to the children of men—“Lord of the Sabbath” because Lord of all that was for the good of mankind.

From the points thus settled certain further points, having special reference to the two here specially mentioned types of the Sabbath and the temple, seem to arise, viz:—

1. That the types in question differ widely in character.—The one pointing forward only to that which has been long since accomplished by the Saviour (Joh_2:21). The other, apparently, pointing to that which He has yet to bring in (Heb_4:9).

2. That there is a corresponding difference in the language of the Saviour about them.—The Saviour deliberately saying that about the one in Joh_4:21 which He nowhere says about the other, not even in such circumstances as those described here.

3. That the spirit, therefore, of this latter symbol, should be observed by us still.—A type which has never been fulfilled, an observance which has never been abrogated, can hardly be obsolete yet.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_12:1-14. The Pharisees’ Sabbath and Christ’s.—This passage includes two Sabbath incidents, in the first of which the disciples are the transgressors of the Sabbatic tradition; in the second, Christ’s own action is brought into question. The scene of the first is in the fields, that of the second is the synagogue. In the one, Sabbath observance is set aside at the call of personal needs; in the other, at a call of another’s calamity. So the two correspond to the old Puritan principle that the Sabbath law allowed of “works of necessity and of mercy.”

I. The Sabbath and personal needs.—What a glimpse into the penury of their usual condition the quiet statement that the disciples were hungry gives us, especially if we remember that it is not likely that the Master had fared better than they! As soon as they “began” to eat, the eager Pharisees, who seem to have been at their heels, call Him to “behold” this dreadful crime. If they had had as sharp eyes for men’s necessities as for their faults they might have given them food which it was “lawful” to eat, and so obviated this frightful iniquity. But that is not the way of Pharisees. Moses had not forbidden such gleaning, but their casuistry decided that plucking the ears was of the nature of reaping, and reaping was work, and work was forbidden, etc. Our Lord accepts His questioners’ position for the time, and gives them a perfect answer on their own ground. He quotes two instances in which ceremonial obligations give way before higher law. “In this place” (He adds)—here among the growing corn, beneath the free heaven, far away from Jerusalem—“is One greater than the temple.” He is all that the temple symbolised. Where He stands is holy ground, and all work done with reference to Him is worship. These poor followers of His are priests; and if, for His sake, they had broken a hundred Sabbath regulations they are guiltless. So far our Lord has been answering His opponents; now He attacks. The quotation from Hosea is often on His lips. Here He uses it to unmask the real motives of His assailants. Their murmuring came not from more religion, but from less love.

II. The Sabbath and works of beneficence.—Matthew appears to have brought together here two incidents which were separated in time, according to Luke. Matthew tells us that they ask our Lord the question which Luke represents Him as asking them. Perhaps we may say that He gave voice to the question which they were asking in their hearts. The whole thing was an attempt to get Jesus within the meshes of the law. Again, as in the former case, it is the traditional, not the written law, which healing would have broken. It is a significant instance of the absurdity and cruelty which are possible when once religion has been made a matter of outward observance. Here Jesus appeals to the natural sense of compassion to confirm the principle that Sabbath observance must give way to the duty of relieving others. The form in which our Lord puts His conclusive answer to the Pharisees gives an unexpected turn to the reply. He does not say “It Is lawful to heal,” but “It is lawful to do well,” thus at once showing the true justification of healing, viz., that it was a beneficent act, and widening the scope of His answer to cover a whole class of cases. The principle is a wide one.—A. Maclaren, D.D.

Mat_12:2. Pharisaism.—

1. It is no new thing to see men who are otherwise learned, and are in account for their holiness in the church, to be adversaries unto Christ and His disciples.

2. Christ’s disciples readily shall be mistaken and misconstrued, do what they please.

3. Hypocrites do urge ceremonies and external observations, more than the greater things of the law.—David Dickson.

Mat_12:3-4. The sacredness of man’s needs.—I. This is the lesson which Christ intended to teach in His reference to this act of David. In general, it may be stated as the sacredness of mans needs, or the right of man in his healthy human wants to the holiest and best supply.—The picture is of a hungry man. Hunger is natural and healthy. Equally natural with hunger is the relief of hunger. The world is made not merely to produce the want, but the bread. The hungry man has a table at his side. The very field in which the farmer works until he is faint and weary brings forth corn which gives strength and refreshment. Here, in token of natural adjustment, is the sign of the Divine recognition of the certain right which hunger has to its supply. That right, indeed, is subject to, and sometimes held in abeyance and suspense by, a higher right. A hungry man must not put out his hand and steal a loaf because his unappeased hunger is unnatural and wrong. Nor may the sentinel on duty, on whose watchfulness the safety of the city depends, desert his post, and go and look for food because his heart is heavy for want of it. The laws of honesty and duty are above everything. But it is just a sign of the disorder and discordance of this world that in it natural rights seem sometimes to conflict, and natural necessities go unsupplied, because their supply would be a sacrifice of higher things. In a world of perfect order every hunger would instantly assert its right to food, and find that right recognised by every obedient energy back to the centre of all energy, which is God Himself. In all his ideal teachings Jesus represents this condition, in which every true want of man has a right to and claims an immediate supply from God. The claim of the human upon the Divine; how better can I describe the comprehensive meaning of the gospel? It appears in its widest presentation in the wonder of the Incarnation. Remembering that general law, as applied to this instance of which we have been speaking, will it not be the portion and duty of every man who knows himself to be a child of God to claim immediately the highest and Divinest of his Father’s helps for all his own most ordinary needs?

II. There is a distinction which we are always drawing between what we call things secular and what we call things sacred.—It is good to perpetually remind ourselves that the difference between things sacred and things profane is not that in things sacred God is present, and that from things secular God is absent. Yet there is a difference between the sacred and the secular. There is a difference between reading your Bible and reading your novel, between talking politics and saying your prayers, between going to the counting-house and going to church. One set of actions belongs distinctly to a lower region than the other. But notwithstanding this is so, nay, all the more because this is so, we need to recognise that the lower life is God’s, and that He cares for it, and that He uses it as truly as the higher. The secular is no less truly sacred than the sacred itself. There is no difference of quality between them; when you come down from the summit you do not come away from God. The great lesson, the great blessing that is pressing into men’s souls, seems to me to lie in the truth, that none of all the notes of life can sound truly except when they are sounded in the atmosphere of God. The mountain tops will glow more richly as the valleys are all filled with light and send up a reflection of the highest glory. The temple will be not less, but more sacred when the sacredness of the shock and the field and the home are cordially and thankfully acknowledged. The shewbread will be all the more holy when it is proved that it is not too holy to fill the hunger of a hungry man. The highest realms of religious speculation and religious rapture will reach higher still when religion has been claimed for the commonest duties and the more sordid sufferings of life as their only strength and help.—Phillips Brooks, D.D.

Interpreting the law.—

1. When the mind of the Law-giver, and the intent and end of the commandment are not contravened, the precept is not broken. This is the ground of Christ’s defence.

2. Not reading nor considering the Scripture whereby the meaning of the law may be understood, is the cause of error and mistaking of duties.—David Dickson.

Mat_12:6. Christ greater than the temple.—

I. The temple exists but for Him.

II. It is but a place of assembly where men may meet with Him.

III. However splendid, it is nothing except He be there.

IV. However lowly, the presence of “the great King” makes of it a heavenly palace.—J. C. Gray.

Mat_12:7. Knowing and judging.—

1. The true meaning of God’s word being known, will prevent rash judgment. “If ye had known.”

2. Condemning the guiltless doth draw the judge, being rash, under guilt. “Ye would not have condemned the guiltless.”

3. It is not every man, no, not every learned man, who is acquainted with the true meaning of the Scriptures, for, in saying, “If ye had known” He taxed both the Pharisees and scribes of ignorance.—David Dickson.

Why must we be merciful?—

1. Because God will have us merciful, and His will must rule us.

2. Because charity is the sum of religion.

3. Because herein we imitate our Father who is a God of mercy.

4. Because we have obtained mercy from our Father.

5. Because otherwise we neither can be assured of mercy from God or men (Mat_5:7; Mat_7:2; Jas_2:13).—Richard Ward.

Mercy and sacrifice.—Archbishop Tillotson gave the most exemplary proof of his charity at the revocation of the edict of Nantes, when thousands of Huguenots were driven over to this country, many of whom settled at Canterbury, where their posterity still continue. The king having granted briefs to collect alms for their relief, Dr. T. was peculiarly active in promoting their success. Dr. Beveridge, one of the prebendaries of Canterbury, refusing to read the briefs as being contrary to the rubrics, he was silenced by Dr. Tillotson with this energetic reply, “Doctor, Doctor, charity is above rubrics.”—Biblical Museum.

Sabbath-service.—In the Sabbath of eternity we shall rest from evil, but doing good will be our Sabbath itself.—Bishop Wordsworth.

Mat_12:7-8. Spirit not letter.—Although I think that the whole law is done away with, so far as it is the law given on Mount Sinai, yet, as far as it is the law of the Spirit, I hold it to be all binding; and believing that our need of a Lord’s day is as great as ever it was, and that, therefore, its observance is God’s will, and is likely, so far as we see, to be so to the end of time, I should think it mischievous to weaken the respect paid to it.—Dr. Arnold’s letter to Justice Coleridge.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

C. CHRIST MANIFESTS HIS ROYAL DIGNITY BY PROVING HIMSELF LORD OF THE SABBATH, LORD OF THE PEOPLE, CONQUEROR AND RULER OF THE KINGDOM OF SATAN, THE FUTURE JUDGE OF HIS OPPONENTS, AND THE FOUNDER OF THE KINGDOM OF LOVE, OR OF THE FAMILY OF THE SAINTS

Matthew 12

Contents:—The two Sabbath-day discussions in Galilee. Project against the life of the Lord, and His consequent retirement, to which many of the people follow Him. Healing of the demoniac who was blind and dumb, and accusation of the Pharisees, that Jesus was in league with the devil. Reply about blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Hostile demand of a sign from heaven. Jesus rejoins by pointing to the sign of Jonas, and by warning against the demoniac possession with which the synagogue was threatened. Even the mother and brethren of Jesus now become afraid,—the Lord taking occasion from this to refer to His spiritual and royal generation. In all these great conflicts, Christ manifests Himself as sovereign, higher than the temple and the Sabbath, King of His poor people, Conqueror of the kingdom of Satan—as having consecrated Himself unto death in the anticipation of the glory to come, and as foretelling the judgments that were to befall Israel, as Preacher of repentance to Mary and her sons, and as Founder of the holy kingdom of love, far above all worldly apprehensions or measures of prudence.

1. The twofold offence connected with the Sabbath; or, the Lord of the Temple and of the Sabbath

Mat_12:1-14

(Comp. Mar_2:23-28; Luk_6:1-5.)

1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day [sabbath] through the corn [grain-fields];1 and his disciples were a hungered [were hungry, or hungered],2 and began to pluck the ears of corn [ears of grain], and to eat. 2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day [sabbath]. 3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did when he was a hungered [was hungry, or hungered], and they that were with him; 4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread [the sacred bread of the altar] which was not lawful for him to eat, neither [nor] for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6But I say unto you, That in this place [here] is one greater [a greater]3 than the temple. 7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless [blameless]. 8For the Son of man is Lord even4 of the sabbath day [sabbath].

(Comp. Mar_3:1-6; Luk_6:6-11.)

9And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: 10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand5 withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days [sabbath]? that they might accuse him. 11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day [sabbath], will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days [sabbath]. 13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. 14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Chronological Order.—The journey of Christ through the cities of Galilee—during which He had sent forth His disciples as Apostles, and received the embassy of the Baptist—had closed with His appearance in Jerusalem at the festival of Purim in the year 782 (John 5.). The cure which He performed on the Sabbath-day at the pool of Bethesda led the Sanhedrim to determine upon His death. This may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of His public ministry, when the enthusiastic reception He had at first met gave place to continuous persecutions. Henceforth His journeys resembled almost a perpetual flight. From the festival of Purim, Jesus retired into Galilee (Joh_6:1). When in the vicinity of Tiberias, He learned that the Baptist had in the interval been executed (comp. Joh_6:1-21 with Matthew 14; also Mar_6:14-56; Luk_9:7-17). The Apostles now returned from their embassy. Jesus withdrew from the overtures of Herod to the eastern shore of the lake. First miraculous feeding. Jesus walking on the sea. The manna from heaven, Joh_6:22-71. The Easter festival of the year of the persecution (Joh_6:4). During this feast, Jesus probably came to Bethany, but not to Jerusalem (see Luk_10:38). Immediately after that, the events occurred which are related in the text. The charge, that Jesus desecrated the Sabbath, followed Him from Jerusalem to Galilee, whither the Sanhedrim and the synagogue sent their spies.

Mat_12:1. On the sabbath.—Luke designates this sabbath by the term δευτερόπρωτον. The expression probably refers to the first sabbath of the second festive cycle in the Jewish year. It was probably the first sabbath after the Passover of the year 782.

And began to pluck ears of grain.—The plucking of ears of grain was in itself no crime. According to Deu_23:25, it was allowed when prompted by the cravings of hunger. The same custom still prevails in Palestine. Robinson, 1:493, 499.—But the Pharisees fastened upon the circumstance that this was done on the sabbath, in order to charge the conduct of the disciples against their Master, as a breach of the fourth commandment. They had evidently received their instructions from Jerusalem, where Jesus had healed the sick man at the pool of Bethesda. His death had been determined upon; and these Pharisees only acted as over-zealous spies. Whenever the disciples commenced to pluck ears of grain (ἥρξαντο), they immediately brought forward their charge. “Traditionalism applied the law of sabbath-observance to all harvest work, among which plucking of ears of grain was also included. Maimonides, Shabb. 8; Lightfoot, and Schöttgen.” Meyer. The only exception was in the case of famine.

Mat_12:3. Have ye not read? 1 Samuel 21.

Mat_12:4. He entered into the house of God,—i. e., into the tabernacle at Nob.—The twelve loaves of shew-bread, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, were not intended as an offering to Jehovah, but symbolized the communion of Jehovah with the priesthood. Accordingly, like the Passover lamb, they were a type of the Lord’s Supper. The candlestick in the temple symbolized the light which Jehovah shed on men through His chosen instruments; the altar of incense, prayer, by which men dedicated themselves to Jehovah; the golden table with the shew-bread, the communion and fellowship of God with man. The basis of all these symbolical ordinances was the altar of sacrifice in the court, and the sprinkling with blood in the temple. The shew-bread was changed every week, and that which was removed from the temple given to the priests. David was the great model of Jewish piety; and yet he went into the house of God, contrary to the commandment, and ate of the consecrated bread.

Mat_12:5. The priests in the temple profane the sabbath, Num_28:9;—i. e., break the outward and general regulations for the sabbath.—Not merely: “consistently with your traditions” (Meyer). This would apply merely to the expression, to break, or profane. The conditional character of the sabbatic law appeared from this, that the enjoyment of the sabbath by the people depended on the regular functions of the sacred priesthood on that day. The first instance adduced required to be supplemented. It only confirmed the lawfulness of similar conduct in case of famine, but not that of doing something on the sabbath which resembled labor. The latter is vindicated by the second example.

Mat_12:6. A greater (a greater thing, μεῖζον, stronger than μείζων6) than the temple is here.—Comp. Joh_2:19. The reasoning is as follows: The necessary duties of the temple-service authorize the servants of the temple, the priests, to break the order of the sabbath [according to your false understanding of sabbath profanation]; how much more can He, who is the real temple of God on earth, far elevated above the symbolical temple, authorize His disciples to break the order of the sabbath [as ye call it], in case of necessity. A conclusion a minori ad majus. The whole deportment of the disciples was a continuous service in the temple.

Mat_12:7. But if ye had known.—Having defended Himself against their attacks, He now turns round upon His opponents. Once more He recalls to their minds the passage in Hos_6:6; this time applying it to them individually. Had they not just insisted upon sacrifice, instead of that mercy which those who were an hungered might claim at their hands?

Mat_12:8. For the Son of Man is Lord.—The emphasis rests on the word Lord, which accordingly is placed first in the original.7 The γάρ confirms the judgment, that the disciples were blameless. The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.—As being Himself the Divine Rest and the Divine Celebration,8 He is both the principle and the object of the sabbath; He rests in God, and God in Him: hence He is the Mediator of proper sabbath-observance, and the Interpreter of the sabbath law. Even the Jews admitted that the authority of the Messiah was greater than that of the laws of the sabbath. (Berthold, Christol. p. 162 sq.) As the opponents of the Lord now directly attacked His Messianic dignity, He was constrained to meet them on their own ground. They could not but understand the expression, “Son of Man,” in this connection, as referring to the Messiah. Still, it was not His last and official confession. Hence the Pharisees soon afterward tempted Him, asking a sign from heaven. The expression, “Son of Man,” then, refers not to the general right of man in connection with the sabbath (Grotius, Clericus, etc.). Still, it is peculiarly suitable in this connection, especially when taken along with the introductory remark recorded by Mark: for the sabbath has been made for man, not man for the sabbath.9

[Alford: “Since the sabbath was an ordinance instituted for the use and benefit of man,—the Son of Man, who has taken upon Him full and complete Manhood, the great representative and Head of humanity, has this institution under His own power.” Wordsworth: “He calls Himself the Lord of the sabbath—a prophetic intimation cleared up by the event, that the law of the sabbath would be changed, as it has now been under the gospel, not by any alteration in the proportion of time due to God, but in the position of the day; by the transfer of it from the seventh day of the week to the first, in memory of the resurrection of the Son of Man.” D. Brown: “In what sense now is the Son of Man Lord of the sabbath-day? Not surely to abolish it—that surely were a strange lordship, especially just after saying that it was made or instituted (ἐγένετο) for Man—but to own it, to interpret it, to preside over it, and to ennoble it, by merging it in ‘the Lord’s Day’ (Rev_1:10), breathing into it an air of liberty and love necessarily unknown before, and thus making it the nearest resemblance to the eternal sabbathism.”—P. S.]

Mat_12:9. And when He had departed thence.—Luke relates that He had come into the synagogue on another sabbath, probably on that which followed this event. Meyer interprets the μεταβὰς ἐκ εῖθεν as meaning, on the same sabbath, and insists that there is a divergence between the accounts of Matthew and Luke. We only see an absence of details in Matthew, while all the circumstances warrant us in supposing that this Evangelist also meant the following sabbath. This view is strengthened by the mention of the change of place, of the lapse of time, and by the circumstance, that Matthew relates how they had laid a regular plan to entrap Him.

Into their synagogue,—i. e., the synagogue of these very opponents. The place in Galilee is not mentioned; but from the manifest authority of His antagonists, we infer that it must have been one of the principal cities. From Mar_2:6, we might suppose that it had been Tiberias, as the Herodian court-party appeared at the time among His opponents. But we do not read that Jesus had at any period been at Tiberias. Meyer suggests that the scene is laid at Capernaum.

Mat_12:10. A man with a withered hand.—Comp. 1Ki_13:4. Probably it was not merely paralyzed in its sinews, but dried up and shrivelled. Comp. Mark and Luke. This person appears to have been an involuntary and unsuspecting instrument of their malice. He is introduced by the Evangelist in the words καὶἰδού. “According to traditionalism, healing was prohibited on the sabbath, excepting in cases where life was in danger.” Meyer, referring to Wetstein and Schöttgen in loc. But it is improbable that this tradition was already settled at that time. The instance adduced by Christ, “What man shall there be among you?” etc., speaks against it. For later traditions also laid down the ordinance, that if a beast fell on the sabbath into a pit, or reservoir for water, it was only lawful to give it necessary food, or straw to lie upon, [or to lay planks] by which it might perhaps also be enabled to come out of the pit. (Maimon. in Shabbath. Sepp, Life of Christ, 2:333.)—Jerome quotes from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, to the effect that the man with the withered hand had been a stonecutter, who entreated Jesus to heal him, that he might no longer be obliged to beg his bread.

Is it lawful?—Properly, if it is lawful; although the εἰ in the New Testament and in the Sept. frequently follows upon direct queries. Still, it indicates doubt or temptation. Meyer supplements mentally, “I should like to know whether.” The meaning of the εἰ would be still stronger, if, while anxious to induce the Lord to heal the man, they had left Him to draw the formal inference. If it is lawful then—(here stands the poor man). Mark and Luke relate how the Pharisees lay in wait for Him.

That they might accuse Him.—Viz., before the local tribunal of the synagogue ( Mat_5:21), where, as appears from the context, they were the judges. But they expected not merely an answer which would enable them to accuse Him of teaching a violation of the Sabbath, but also an outward act, which they might charge against Him as an actual breach of the fourth commandment.

Mat_12:11. What man is there among you?—The construction as in Mat_7:9. Luke introduces this on another occasion in Mat_13:15, and Mat_14:5.

Mat_12:13. And he stretched it forth.—By this act the restored man defied the authority of the Pharisees, and acknowledged that of Christ. Hence it was a signal manifestation of faith, even as the cure, in the midst of such contradiction, was an instance of special power. To stretch forth his hand, was to have it restored.

Mat_12:14. And held a council.—A formal heresy-suit was to be immediately instituted. According to Mark, they combined for this purpose with the Herodian court-party, which had probably been offended by the recent refusal of Jesus to meet Herod, Luk_9:9. Thus neither the clear arguments of Jesus had convinced them of their error, nor His gracious manifestation awakened in their breast aught but feelings of bitterness. Their murderous purpose was still further stimulated by the admiration of the people, who followed Him in large numbers.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Among the offences which the Pharisees took against the work and teaching of the Lord, that of breaking the sabbath stood only next in importance to the unnamed, yet chief stumblingblock in their minds, that He would not be a Messiah according to their own ideas (Joh_1:29; comp. Matthew 4; Joh_9:30-31; Joh_10:24). Christ first excited the attention and suspicion of the Jews by His cleansing the temple (Joh_2:13). What He had said upon that occasion about breaking down the temple, they had perverted and stored up against Him. Henceforth they were filled with suspicion, and narrowly watched Him (Joh_4:1). Then followed the offence connected with his intercourse with publicans (Matthew 9). This was succeeded by His mode of treating their ordinances about the sabbath. His cure of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda had decided them against Him, when the two events recorded in the text completed the excitement. The charge was in the first place brought against the disciples, and then against their Lord. As formerly in Jerusalem, so now in Galilee, His death was resolved upon. The scene recorded in Luk_13:17, which now occurred, probably took place in the country, and hence excited less notice. This was again followed by the second and greatest offence given by Jesus, when He healed the blind man at Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles (John 9); an offence which was not obviated by the circumstance, that in connection with this miracle, Jesus made use of the pool of Siloam, on the temple-mount.

From all this it appears, that their offence about the sabbath formed the basis and centre of all their other accusations against Jesus. In view of this, His miracles were represented as resulting from fellowship with Satan; His claim to the Messiahship, as an arrogation of the prophetic office, and a seduction of the people; and His taking the name of “Son of God,” as blasphemy. Objections of less weight, and an interminable catalogue of calumnies, were connected with these charges. But the real stumblingblock of the Pharisees, was that conflict between the spirit and the dead letter, between the gospel and traditionalism, between salvation and unbelief, righteousness and hypocrisy, and holiness and proud self-seeking, which Christ represented and embodied.—It is a striking fact, that the pharisaical hierarchy which had charged the Lord with desecrating the sabbath, was obliged to hold a council on the great Easter-sabbath, to run into the heathen and unclean house of the Gentile Pilate, and then to seal the stone over the tomb of Jesus in the unclean place of a skull.

2. Christ is Lord of the sabbath in the Church and in believers; and the statement, that the sabbath is made for man, is surely all the more applicable to the Lord’s Day. Viewing the fourth commandment as enjoining a day of festive rest, it is as much binding on the Christian Church and on civil society as any other of the ten commandments. But in its true meaning, the Jewish sabbath law was a Divine law of humanity and of protection for man and even for beast (“thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger”), and prepared for the Christian sabbath in the highest sense; which is much more than a law or outward ordinance, it is a Divine-human institution, a new creation and a life in the Spirit. According to this standard, we may test our mode of sabbath-observance, whether or not it correspond to the mind of Christ, and to the spiritual import of His resurrection-day. Every urgent necessity must at once put an end to the outward ordinance; and to discharge such duties, is to establish, not to invalidate, the right observance of the sabbath. Works of necessity are conditioned by compassion and mercy. Christ is Lord of the sabbath, being Himself the personal sabbath: all that leads to Him, and is done in Him, is sabbath observance; all that leads from Him, is sabbath-breaking. Therefore let it be ours to oppose every desecration of the sabbath, in every form and in every sense.10

3. In strict consistency with the view of the Pharisees, who represented the disciples as having done what amounted to harvest labor, it might have been argued, that the priests were engaged on the sabbath in the occupation of butchers and bakers, and this in the temple itself. But what should be said of the Christian minister who would condemn works of necessity and mercy? “The sacrificial services, and the ceremonial law generally, were designed to be subservient to the highest law of love, 1Sa_15:22; Psa_50:8-14; Psa_51:17; Hos_6:6; Mat_9:13.” Gerlach. Comp. also Isa_1:13-14; Isa_66:2-3, etc.

4. Christ spares the representatives of traditionalism even while resisting them: He heals the man with the withered hand, merely by His word, not by touching him, nor by taking hold of his hand.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Traditionalism denouncing the Lord as a heretic: 1. The narrative; 2. its eternal import.—How the spirit of traditionalism perverts false worship into antagonism to genuine worship.—The outward ordinances of the sabbath perverted into antagonism to the spiritual principle of the sabbath.—Genuine sabbath-observance.—How does it manifest itself? 1. By the removal of the sabbath interruptions caused by misery and want; 2. in works of mercy and compassion; 3. by transforming the work of the week into spiritual labor and labor of love.

Mat_12:1-8 : Works of necessity.—True and spurious works of necessity.

Mat_12:9-14 : Works of love.—True and spurious works of love.—How the teaching, institutions, and history of the Old Testament themselves supply a spiritual interpretation of the letter, Mat_12:1-8.—How the conduct of legal zealots testifies against their traditions, Mat_12:9-14.—How hypocrites care more for their ceremonies than for their cattle, and more for their cattle than for their suffering brethren.—We are to be compassionate even to animals.—Even animals should have a share in our festive days.—Christ victorious over His opponents.—Christ the true temple.—Christ the Lord of the sabbath.—Christ leading us to true sabbath-observance.—Sabbath-breaking and desecration of the temple, as appearing in the conduct of the enemies of the Lord when condemning Him to death for an alleged breach of the fourth commandment.—Object of the Lord’s Day, and object of Christian worship.—To convert these means into the object, is to destroy the object itself.—How self-righteous traditionalism hardens itself amidst the most glorious manifestations of Christ,—The Lord’s Day either the most blessed season of spiritual rest, or the most dreary workday.—The Church either the most blessed place of rest, or the most dreary workhouse.—Explanation of the fourth commandment by the life and teaching of the Lord.

Starke:

Mat_12:1-8. Quesnel:—It is better to suffer want with Christ than to indulge in earthly luxury.—The preservation of man is more important than any outward ordinance.—Hedinger: Let us remember the glorious liberty of Christianity, which should not be readily surrendered for the yoke of outward ceremonies, Col_2:16-20.—It is the common practice of hypocrites to make of trifles a matter of conscience and a sin, while at the same time they are not afraid to commit grievous sins against God.—Those who have zeal without knowledge must be reproved by the word of God.—Works of mercy, of necessity, and for the glory of God are not prohibited on the sabbath day; but let us take care not to make a case of necessity where there is none.—Osiander: Necessity dispenses from observance of the ceremonial law, but not from that of the ten commandments.—True sabbath-observance: rest of the soul from sinful lusts, and dedication of the heart to God.—The Lord of the temple must be sought in the temple.—The real character of all works and pretences to piety should be ascertained.—A diligent exercise of genuine love the most acceptable worship, Jam_1:27.

Mat_12:9-14 : Persecution must not deter the servant of God from continuing his work.—Zeisius: Following the example of Christ, we should rejoice in frequenting meetings for religious exercises.

Majus: It is worse than ungodliness to go into the house of God only in order to spy, to lay snares, and to find vent for our malice.

Cramer: The godly are always engaged in a controversy with the world; but at length, they invariably obtain the victory.

Osiander: We must do good to our neighbor, even though we should be evil spoken of on that account by wicked men.—A pair of strong working arms is a great blessing from God.—Determined and wilful enemies of the truth are beyond recovery.—2Ti_3:13.

Lisco:—The Pharisees misunderstood the object of the ceremonial law, which was to support and to strengthen the moral law.—The Lord shows by the example of David, that not the letter, but the spirit, of the law was of importance.—Our whole life should be a sabbath devoted to the Lord, a type of the eternal sabbath in the world to come.

Heubner: The disciples were poor; but they preferred to suffer hunger with Christ, rather than enjoy affluence without Him.—Hypocrites are always the most censorious.—Genuine love and esteem for man are the best interpreters of the law.

[Dr. Brown:—How miserable a thing is a slavish adherence to the letter of the Scripture, which usually, the closer it is, occasions only a wider departure from its spirit.—Wordsworth:—In the sabbath of eternity we shall rest from evil, but doing good will be our sabbath itself.—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[1] Mat_12:1.—[Lange: Getreidefeld; Luther: Saat; van Ess: Santfeld. The Greek τὰ σπόριμα from σπείρω means sewn felids grain-fields, corn-fields. In the parallel passages, Mar_2:23 and Luk_6:1, the word is translated in the E. V.: corn-fields.—P. S.]

[2] Mat_12:1.—[Comp. Mat_4:2, and the crit. not p.80]

[3] Mat_12:6.—Codd. B., D., K., M., etc., [also Cod. Sinaiticus] read the neuter μεῖζον, which is therefore better authenticated than the received reading μείζων. [Lange translates: ein Höheres als der Tempel ist hier—something higher, or a greater thing, than the temple is here. Alford and Wordsworth also read μεῖζον, which sustains the parallel better. Comp. Mat_2:19.—P. S.]

[4] Mat_12:8.—The καί (even) before τοῦ σαββάτου is wanting in the best authorities [also in Cod. Sinait.], and seems to be borrowed from the parallel passages of Mark and Luke.

[5] Mat_12:10.—The words of the text, rec.: ἧν τήν before χεῖρα are wanting in B., C, etc., [Cod. Sinait.], and hence doubtful.

[6][Comp. also πλεῖον ̓Ιωνᾶ and πλεῖον Σολομῶνος in Mat_12:41-42—P. S.]

[7][In German the exact order of the Greek: κύριος γάρ ἐστι τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, can be retained, as in Lange’s version: Denn Herr des Sabbats ist der Menschensohn.—P. S.]

[8][Germ.: die persönlichs Gotterche, Gotlesfeier, the personal embodiment or incarnation of the rest and worship of God.—P. S.]

[9][Mar_2:27. A great principle which must regulate the whole sabbath question, and settles both the permanent necessity of the sabbath for the temporal and eternal welfare of man, and the true Christian freedom in its observance. So the family is made for man, i. e., for the benefit of man, and therefore a most benevolent institution, a gracious gift of God. Government is made for man, i. e., it is not an end but a necessary and indispensable means for the protection, development, well-being and happiness of man. If the means be turned into an end, the benefit is lost. I have given my views on the sabbath-question and the merits of the Anglo-American theory and practice as compared with the Continental European, in a little book published by the Am. Tract Society, New York, 1864.—P. S.]

[10] [Dr. J. P. Lange, the author of this Commentary, composed a beautiful hymn on the Sabbath of which I will quote the first stanza:

“Stiller, heil’ger Sabbathag,

Wie ein hehrer Glockenschlag

Aus dem Dom der Ewigkeit

T nst du durch’s Gewirr der Zeit,

Dass der Mensch aus dem Genichle

Seiner Werks zum Gefühle

Seiness ew’gen Wessns komms

Und bedenic, was ikm fromme.”—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:1-21.

Jesus Is Accused Of Breaking The Sabbath

Pursuing his treatment of successive topics, connected with our Lord’s life and labours (compare on Mat 11:2), the Evangelist now speaks (Ch. 12) of the opposition he encountered. This subject has been several times already briefly alluded to, (Mat 9:3, Mat 9:11, Mat 9:14, Mat 9:34, Mat 10:25, Mat 11:19) but is here treated at length, various instances of opposition being stated, with our Lord’s reply in each case. First, we have two instances of their charging him with violating the Sabbath, viz., because the disciples plucked ears of grain on the Sabbath, (Mat 12:1-8) and because he healed the withered hand on the Sabbath. (Mat 12:9-13) At this, the indignation of the Pharit sees became so violent that it was necessary for Jesus to withdraw, in which withdrawal the Evangelist points out the fulfilment of another prophecy. (Mat 12:14-21) Next, we have their charge that he cast out demons by league with Beelzebub. (Mat 12:22-31) Then, the demand for a "sign." (Mat 12:38-45) And finally, an instance of opposition even from his nearest relatives. (Mat 12:46-50) The fact that these last cases (Mat 12:22-50) occurred on the same day on which he afterwards spoke the great series of Parables in Matthew 18 (see on "Mat 13:1"), may account for Matthews’ introducing the whole subject of opposition just at this point of his treatise. Our present section comprises the two accusations of violating the Sabbath and the immediate consequences. We shall see that this belongs much earlier in the history than the remaining instances.

I. Mat 12:1-8. The Disciples Pluck Ears Of Grain On The Sabbath

Compare Mar 2:23-28 Luk 6:1-5. At that time (season), the same expression in Greek as in Mat 11:25. It does not necessarily show that what follows took place on the same day with what precedes, but only that it belongs to the same general period of time. (Compare on Mat 3:1, and contrast Mat 13:1) At that period, viz., while Jesus was engaged in journeying about Galilee, teaching and healing (see on "Mat 4:23"and see on "Mat 9:35"), occurred the events now to be narrated. The order of Mark, who is usually chronological, supported by that of Luke, places these first instances of opposition in the early part of the Galilean ministry, before the Sermon on the Mount. The standing grain shows the time of year, between Passover and Pentecost.[1] As it thus followed a Passover, the question arises to which of the Passovers mentioned in the Fourth Gospel we must refer it. Now, it cannot have been that of Joh 2:13, after which Jesus tarried in Judea, (Joh 3:22) with so extensive results of his ministry (Joh 4:1) as to require at least several months. To place it just after the Passover of Joh 6:4, a year before the crucifixion (Edersheim ch. 35), is to disregard altogether the order of Mark and Luke, for this supposes that Mar 2:23 f. follows Mar 6:31 ff., and Luk 6:1 ff. follows Luk 9:10 ff. But if we suppose the feast of Joh 5:1 to be a Passover, (as most of the Harmonies do), all fits exactly. This is long enough after the beginning of our Lord’s ministry for the hostility to have become acute; these instances of opposition on the ground of Sabbath-breaking in Galilee correspond to one during the just preceding Passover in Jerusalem, (Joh 5:10) in both cases awakening a desire to put him to death; (Joh 5:18 Mat 12:14) and the order of Mark and Luke is conserved. Of course it is possible that the Passover here in question should be one not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; but the other supposition is far more probable.

[1] In Luk 6:1 Westcott Hort and Ray. Ver. omit ’second-first,’ but transcriptional probability is very strongly in favour of retaining this otherwise unknown and very obscure compound word. Meyer’s theory of its origin, adopted by Westcott Hort, is possible, but far from probable. The question of its genuineness is quite hard to solve, and its discussion belongs to a commentary on Luke; fortunately, it is of no historical importance, for the standing grain sufficiently shows the time of year. The most probable interpretation of the ’second-first Sabbath’ makes it mean the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover festival, when the sheaf of grain was presented, after which day the new harvest could be eaten.(Lev 23:5-15).

Through the corn (or, grain-fields), literally, through the sown (places), which Tyndale and his followers rendered ’through the corn,’ while in Mar 2:23 and Luk 6:1, they make it ’corn-fields,’ though the Greek is the same. The word ’corn,’ in various European languages, is applied to bread-stuffs in general, especially to that most used in the particular nation, whether wheat, barley, rye, or oats. In England it means especially wheat, while in America it has become confined to maize, which our English ancestors called Indian corn. Besides this and the parallel passages, we find Tyndale and followers using ’corn’ in Mar 4:28 Act 7:12, where the Greek has the common word for ’wheat,’ so translated by them all in Mat 3:12, Mat 13:25, and wherever else in New Testament it occurs. In Joh 12:24 ’a corn of wheat’ (Com. Ver.) means a grain of wheat (Rev. Ver.), as in barley corn. Why Rev. Ver. should not here say ’grain-fields’ and ’ears of grain’ (Noyes, Bible Un. Ver.) and ’wheat’ in Mar 4:28 Act 7:12, is hard to tell. Among the Jews the lands of different owners were not usually separated by fences, but only by stones set up at intervals as landmarks, (Deu 19:14) and the roads were not distinct from the fields, as commonly among us, but ran right through them, as Southern plantatation paths often do, so that the grain grew up to the edge of the path (compare on Mat 13:4); the same thing is seen in Palestine to-day. Disciples, see on "Mat 5:1". Began to pluck the ears of corn (grain), either wheat or barley, probably the latter, if it was just after the Passover. Luk 6:1 adds, ’rubbing them in their hands,’ a thing familiar to every one who has been much in harvest fields. Began to pluck, and presently the Pharisees interfered, and tried to stop it.

Mat 12:2. These Pharisees (compare on Mat 3:7) were making a short Sabbath day’s journey, about one thousand yards, through the same grain-fields. Behold, calling his attention to something important. Thy disciples do that (are doing). Mark (Mar 2:2) makes it a question addressed to him, and Luke (Luk 5:2) a question addressed to the disciples. In many cases the Evangelists do not undertake to give the exact language employed, but only the substance of it (compare on Mat 3:17). Which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath. It was expressly permitted to do this in general, (Deu 23:25) and such things are still common in Palestine, but the Jews maintained that it should never be done on the Sabbath. For that day they numbered each distinct act that could be called work as a separate sin, requiring a separate sin-offering; to pluck the ears was one act, to rub out the grains was a second (compare Edersheim, ch. 35). As to the numerous and often absurd Rabbinical regulations for the Sabbath, see Edersh. Appendix 17, Geikie, ch. 38.

3 f. Our Lord’s reply to this censure of the disciples and himself contains, as here reported, four distinct arguments, Mat 12:3 f., Mat 12:5 f., Mat 12:7, and Mat 12:8. A fifth argument is given in this connection by Mar 2:27, a sixth below in Mat 12:11 f., a seventh (probably just before at Jerusalem) in Joh 5:17, and an eighth (much later) in Joh 7:22 f. The first argument is an appeal to history, viz., to the conduct of David, (1Sa 21:1-6) which these Pharisees would admit to have been justifiable. The point of the argument is, that necessity would justify a departure from the strict law as to things consecrated. And they that were with him may be connected either with ’did,’ or with ’was hungry,’ and there is no substantial difference. The participation of David’s followers is unmistakably indicated in 1Sa 21:4 f.; our Lord brings it out clearly in order to make the case more obviously parallel to that of himself and his followers. The house of God, meaning the tabernacle. (Exo 23:19; Jdg 18:31; 1Sa 1:7, 1Sa 1:24, 1Sa 3:15; 2Sa 12:20; Psa 5:7; compare 1Co 5:1) Shewbread, literally, loaves of the setting-out, loaves that were set out, the common Septuagint’ expression, in Hebrew usually ’bread of the face’, i.e., placed before the face of Jehovah. For the law about this, see Lev 24:5-9. Twelve very large loaves of bread were placed on a small table (at a later period, two tables, 1Ch 28:16), which sat on the right side of the holy place to one entering. When the Sabbath came, new loaves were substituted, and the old ones eaten, there in the holy place, by the priests, the descendants of Aaron—for this offering was to he regarded as peculiarly sacred. (Lev 24:9) David was fleeing southward from Gibeah, Saul having determined to slay him, and came to Nob, just north of Jerusalem, where the tabernacle then was. Having left in great haste, without food, he deceived the high-priest by saying that the king had sent him on a secret and urgent mission, and thereby induced him, as there was no other bread on hand, to bring some of the shew-loaves, which had been removed from the table, but not yet eaten. It seems likely, from 1Sa 21:5 f., though not certain, that the bread had been changed on that day, which was therefore the Sabbath. This would give additional appositeness to the illustration, but the point of the argument does not depend on it. Our Lord makes no allusion to the deception practised by David, which any one would agree was wrong. The sole point he makes is, that for David and bib attendants (Luk 6:4) to eat the hallowed bread was justifiable, on the ground of necessity—a view in which all his hearers would concur. Kimchi, a celebrated Jewish commentator of the thirteenth century, on 1Sa 21:5, maintains that in case of hunger the shew-bread might be eaten by those who were not priests; not only that which had been removed from the table, but that which was upon it; yea, even when there was none to put in its room. And if the law about the hallowed bread might be set aside by necessity, so might the law about the hallowed day. The disciples really needed food. Mark (Mar 2:27) here records our Lord’s adding the general principle, ’The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.’ It came into existence for the benefit of mankind, and so it may be temporarily set aside by any imperative necessity. (Compare 2Ma 5:19.)

Mat 12:5 f. A second ground of justification for the disciples was drawn, not from sacred history, but from the law. (Num 28:9-10, Num 28:18-19) Here as in Mat 5:17, Jesus shows (Weiss) that he is not abrogating or violating the law, for he justifies his course out of the law itself. Or, introducing another argument, as in Mat 7:9. Have ye not read, as in Mat 12:8; (compare Mat 12:7) Mat 19:4, Mat 21:16, etc., reproaches them with ignorance of Scripture. Temple is here the general term, ’sacred (place),’ including the whole consecrated enclosure—buildings, courts, and all (see on "Mat 4:5"), thus applying equally well to the tabernacle and to the Temple. The priests were directed to offer certain sacrifices in the sacred place on the Sabbath—more, in fact, than on other days-though to do so required the slaying of animals and other acts prohibited on the Sabbath, and which under any other circumstances would ’profane the Sabbath.’ This was right, because the temple with its sacrifices was of higher importance than the Sabbath, and would override the requirements of its sanctity. Blameless, or, guiltless, both in Mat 12:5 and Mat 12:7, or else ’blameless’ in both, the Greek word being the same in both verses, and the verbal connection being of some importance. Our Lord argues that the same principle applies to the case in band, and still more strongly, because here, he solemnly tells them, is one—or,something—greater than the temple. The correct reading makes the Greek word not masculine, ’a greater (man),’ but neuter, ’a greater (thing),’ compare Mat 12:41, and Mat 11:9. This peculiar form of expression may have been intended to render the statement less distinctly offensive to Jewish prejudices, but it unquestionably asserts a superior dignity and importance connected, in whatever way, with him and his mission. The temple was superior to the Sabbath, and there was that here which was superior to the temple; much more, then, might the usual law of the Sabbath be set aside without blame, when it became necessary for his disciples in his service. This argument would be best appreciated by Jewish readers, and is given by Matthew only. On a later occasion, our Lord drew a similar argument from circumcision. (Joh 7:22 f.) The principle he here lays down would show the propriety, even upon grounds of Old Testament law, of all such active exertions on the Sabbath as are really necessary in attending upon and conducting religious worship. (Mat 12:8 goes further still.)

Mat 12:7. A third point in the defence is drawn from a prophet, as the others had been from history and law. This again is given by Matthew only, who has Jewish readers especially in mind. But if ye had known what this meaneth—literally—what is, i.e., what means, see on "Mat 9:13". These Pharisees, many of them Scribes, did know what the passage was in its words, but did not know what it was in its true meaning. The quotation, from Hos 6:6, has been explained above on Mat 9:13. The idea here may be thus expressed: "If you knew that God desires kindness and good-will to men, rather than sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless." It is implied that if they really knew the meaning of the passage, they would have acted according to it. Only those who are willing to obey Scripture, fully comprehend its spiritual instruction. (compare Joh 7:17) The disciples are ’guiltless,’ just as the priests in the temple are, because they ’are busy in connection with something even greater than the temple. And if these Pharisees were disposed, according to the prophet’s words, to treat their follow-men kindly and fairly, rather than to make piety consist exclusively in outward observances, they would not have condemned them. (compare Mat 23:23)

Mat 12:8. This gives a fourth defence of the disciples, in the shape of a reason for declaring them ’guiltless.’ Acting under their Master’s authority, they had a right to do what would not usually be proper on the Sabbath, for he is Lord of the Sabbath. (Even is genuine in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew) This statement carries higher the idea of Mat 12:6. There he declared the presence of something superior to the temple, and a fortiori, to the Sabbath; here he says that the Messiah is Lord of the Sabbath, having full authority to control and regulate it as he may see proper. In both cases it is implied that the speaker is the person referred to, but it is not distinctly stated, because the time for publicly taking such a position has not yet come. The Son of man, see on "Mat 8:20". If the inspired apostles of Jesus afterwards changed the day to be observed, and absolved Christians from all particular Mosaic as well as traditional rules concerning the manner of observing it, they were not going beyond the authoritative control over the Sabbath which their Master himself had claimed.

As a sixth point, our Lord now shows (Mat 12:9-13) that it is also proper to depart from the strict observance of the Sabbath, when requisite to the relief of a suffering fellow-man, or even a suffering brute. These two instances have led to the familiar saying, derived from the Westminster Catechism, that we may do on the Sabbath "works of necessity and mercy." Another example of healing on the Sabbath had occurred, apparently just before, leading to a seventh argument; (Joh 5:9, Joh 5:17) and yet other instances are recorded in Mar 1:21, Mar 1:29 ff; Luk 13:10 ff.; Luk 14:3; Joh 9:14 ff. This frequent departure from what the Jews thought to be proper on the Sabbath, with the pains here taken to explain and defend his course, was doubtless designed by our Lord as a part of his general undertaking to teach them a more spiritual interpretation and observance of the law (compare on Mat 5:17-21). In order to this he showed, by word and deed, the error and folly of that rigid formalism with which they insisted so much on the minute and literal observance of all its outward requirements, regardless of its true spirit and real design, He has here said nothing at all calculated to impair the sanctity of the Sabbath. On the contrary, as "the-exception proves the rule," his argument that there are peculiar circumstances in which its observance should be set aside, necessarily involves the idea that in general it should be observed. The Sabbath seems to have been enjoined upon our first parents as soon as they were created; it and the institution of marriage form the only relics that remain to us of the unfallen life in Paradise. The command to hallow it was included among the Ten Commandments, the moral law which is of perpetual obligation. The very term "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy", (Exo 20:8) seems to treat it as not something new, but an already existing institution; and it appears from the history of the first fall of manna (Exo 16:5, Exo 16:22-30) that the people were previously acquainted with the Sabbath and that some of them were disposed to forget or neglect it. Recent research shows that the Babylonians before the time of Abraham observed a week of seven days, ending with a rest day which they strictly kept, and which the Assyrian writers call by the name Sabbath. With this agrees the week repeatedly mentioned in Genesis, and it is now too late to say that the Sabbath was unknown till the lawgiving at Mount Sinai. In the further legislation which followed the giving of the Ten Commandments, to the general idea of hallowing the day, is added the prohibition of work on the Sabbath, under penalty of death. (Exo 31:14, Exo 35:2) To carry this out more effectually, they were prohibited to kindle a fire on that day (Exo 35:3) probably in order to prevent cooking, just as a double supply of manna fell on the sixth day, and none on the seventh. This regulation about making a fire being forgotten or contemned by one of the people, who was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath, he was, by divine direction, stoned to death; (Num 15:32-36) on which occasion it was provided that the people should wear a fringe on the garment, with a ribbon of blue (see above on "Mat 9:20"), to remind them continually of the commandments of Jehovah, which they seemed so prone to forget. (Num 15:37-41) Now these particular regulations, being a part of the civil and ceremonial law of the Jewish people, ceased to be obligatory when the natural gave way to the spiritual Israel, through the work of Christ. But the Sabbath still remained, as it existed before Israel, and was even from the creation a day appointed by God to be holy, (Gen 2:3) which the Mosaic law recognized at the outset, in reminding the people to keep it holy. After the resurrection of Christ an additional significance was given to the day, as representing not only "the completion of God’s work of Creation," but also "the triumphant completion of the still more glorious work of Redemption." (Boyce, Catechism of Bible Doctrine.) In order to this, the day appears to have been changed by the apostles from the seventh to the first day of the week, as that on which Christ rose. (Joh 20:19, Joh 20:26 Act 20:7, 1Co 16:2 Rev 1:10) This added significance and change of day did not affect the perpetual obligation to keep holy the Sabbath. But Christianity, true to its spiritual character, gives no particular precepts as to the mode of observing the day, and leaves us to perform the duty of keeping it holy in such methods as an enlightened conscience may deem most conformable to its twofold significance and its general design. Compare below, "Homiletical and Practical."

II. Mat 12:9-13. Healing The Withered Hand On The Sabbath

(Compare Mar 3:1-5 Luk 6:6-10) And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue. We should most naturally infer, had we Matthew’s narrative alone, that this incident took place on the same Sabbath as the preceding. But Luk 6:6 says, ’on another Sabbath’; and nothing in Matthew’s statement necessarily conflicts with this. The connection in Mar 3:7 appears to show that the place was in Galilee, but it cannot be more exactly determined. ’Their synagogue’ means the synagogue of the people in that vicinity. (Compare on Mat 12:1) As to the synagogues, see on "Mat 4:23". A man which had, etc. Having a withered hand is the best supported reading. Luke adds (Luk 6:5) that it was his right hand. We cannot determine the precise nature of the affection which caused his hand to wither. Jerome mentions that the so-called "Gospel" of the Nazarenes called him a stone-mason—which, though only a tradition, would illustrate for us the importance of his right hand. And they asked him. Luke states that they were the Scribes and Pharisees. He and Mark only mention that they watched him to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath; Matthew does not contradict them, but simply adds that they asked him whether it was lawful. That they might accuse him, probably before the ’judgment,’ the local tribunal (see on "Mat 5:21"). The later Jewish writings show much discussion as to the propriety of healing on the Sabbath. All agreed that it ought to be done where life was in danger (see Wet., Wun., or Edersheim), but they of course differed much on the question what diseases could be considered as endangering life. The Talmud gives a host of directions for different cases, with many absurd distinctions; e. g., "One who has a sore throat must not gargle with oil; but he may swallow oil (for food), and if that cures him, all right." One Rabbi taught that a man might take a purgative drink, if he took it for pleasure, but must not take it for the purpose of healing. The law had said nothing about healing disease on the Sabbath, but many Rabbis took the ground that it was "work." (Exo 31:14) Tyndale and followers, including our Com. Ver., have ’on the Sabbath days,’ in Mat 12:10 and Mat 12:12, but the plural form of the Greek word is frequently used (Grimm) in the singular sense, as they all translate in Mat 12:11.

Mat 12:11 f. He appeals not as in the former instance, to the history, the law, or the prophets, but to the course pursued by the people themselves in other matters. This argument is here given by Matthew only, but similar arguments are given by Luke, (Luk 13:15, Luk 14:5) as afterwards used on other occasions. Mark mentions (Mar 3:3) that Jesus told the man to stand up in the midst, probably that the bystanders might look at him with sympathy, and thus justly appreciate the propriety of healing him. To awaken healthy feeling, is sometimes the best remedy for unreasonable prejudice. One sheep would be a matter of no great consequence, and yet even this the owner would lift out of a pit on the Sabbath day. In the Talmud some Rabbis maintained that it was enough when a beast fell into a pit to give it food; others said, put something under it to lie on, and if by means of this it climbs out, all right; others said, take it out with the intention of killing it, even though afterwards you change your mind and preserve it. To such silly evasions were men driven, by the attempt to convert morality into a mere system of rules. Jesus appeals to common sense, asking whether any one present would fail in such a case to preserve his property. Edersheim: "There could he no doubt, at any rate, that even if the traditional law was, at the time of Christ, as stringent as in the Talmud, a mall would have found some device by which to recover his sheep."The old Roman religious law provided that on the sacred days an ox might be drawn out of a pit. A man better—of more value—than a sheep, see a like argument in "Mat 6:26", and in Mat 10:29-31. Wherefore, or, ’so that,’ a general inference from what precedes. It is lawful. The word law does not enter into the Greek expression (see also in Mat 12:10), which means simply it is allowable, or permissible. To do well (good) on the Sabbath. Com. Ver. ’to do well,’ looks literal, but really gives a different sense. Wyclif used ’to do good,’ Tyn., Cram, Gen., Rheims, ’to do a good deed.’ In Mark and Luke he first puts this as a question, ’Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm,’ intimating that by delaying to heal the man he would be inflicting an injury. They made no answer, and he ’looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart.’ (Mar 3:5) They could not reply to his arguments, nor deny that he was right, and yet would not give up their fierce opposition. And so he looked upon them with mingled indignation and grief.

Mat 12:13. And it was restored in the act of stretching it forth. Whole, healthy, sound, well. Even from their own point of view the Pharisees must have found it difficult to call this breaking the Sabbath, for Jesus used no remedy, performed no action, simply spoke a word, and the man merely stretched forth his hand. They had hoped to make a strong ease against Jesus, and being silenced by his argument and baffled by his action, they were all the more angry, ’filled with madness,’ (Luk 6:11)

Mat 12:14-21. Plot To Destroy Jesus, And His Withdrawal

For the plot compare Mar 3:6 Luk 6:11; the consequent withdrawal is described by Mark (Mar 3:7-12) with his characteristic fullness of detail. Held a council, rather, took counsel, against him, as the same phrase is rendered by Com. Ver. in Mat 22:15, and elsewhere, and a similar one in Mar 3:6, and as all English versions before King James rendered here. Mark tells us that the Pharisees drew into this consultation the Herodians, who were their own enemies. (Compare on Mat 22:16) Remembering that this was before the Sermon on the Mount (see on "Mat 12:1"and see on "Mat 12:15"), and probably almost two years before the Crucifixion, we perceive that the enmity of the leading Jews had already gone very far. A similar effort to slay him in Jerusalem and upon the same charge of breaking the Sabbath, (Joh 5:16-18) probably belongs in the history shortly before this effort in Galilee. (See on "Mat 12:1".) The two movements may have arisen independently, or emissaries may have been sent from Jerusalem, as was done a year later. (Mat 15:1) Their pretended reason for plotting his destruction was that he violated the Sabbath, and so was condemned to death by the law; (Exo 31:14, Exo 25:2) the true reason seems to have been their jealousy of his growing credit among the people, and fear that he would impair their own influence. What a reproach upon human nature, to see men maintaining that it was a mortal sin to heal disease on the Sabbath, and yet foully plotting on that same sacred day, how they might destroy the innocent Teacher and Healer.

Mat 12:15. Learning that such was their intention, our Lord retired from that neighbourhood, and when crowds gathered to him in his new position beside the Lake of Galilee, he healed them all, and charged them not to make him known; (Mat 12:16) in which course on his part the Evangelist points out the fulfilment of another prophecy. (Mat 12:17-21) Already in Mat 4:12 we have seen him withdraw from some place to avoid persecution; and there will be similar instances hereafter. (Mat 14:12, Mat 15:21, Mat 16:5) Alexander : "The retreat before his enemies was prompted not by fear, but by that wise discretion which was constantly employed in the selection and the use of the necessary means for the promotion of the great end which he came to accomplish. As it entered into the divine plan that his great atoning work should be preceded by a prophetic ministry of several years’ duration, the design of which was to indoctrinate the people in the nature of his kingdom, to prepare the way for its erection, and to train the men by whom it should he organized, it formed no small part of his york to check and regulate the progress of events, so as not to precipitate the consummation, but to secure and complete the requisite preparatory process." The hour was not yet come, for the Son of man to be delivered into the hands of sinners. (Mat 26:45) He never shrank from doing good because of the knowledge that it would provoke opposition; he simply transferred his beneficent labours to another scene, as he directed the disciples to do. (Mat 10:23) And great multitudes—or, many—followed him. This was early strengthened by some copyists into the familiar phrase, ’many crowds,’ or ’great crowds,’ as in Mat 4:25, and often. And he healed them all. Another general and comprehensive statement of his great work (compare on Mat 4:23, Mat 8:16; Mat 9:35). At this period, as appears from a comparison of Mat 12:15 with Mar 3:7-12, and Luk 6:11-20, the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. We have already seen (on Mat 4:12, and Mat 8:1), that in all this portion of his Gospel, Matthew departs from the order of time, and groups his materials according to the relation of topics, as is often done by historical writers. And (he) charged them, the Greek word implying threats of displeasure if they should disobey him. For some general reasons why he usually prohibited persons healed from talking about it, see on "Mat 8:4". An additional and special reason is here given, viz., that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by (through) Esaias the prophet. For these phrases, compare on Mat 1:22, and Mat 4:14. It was the divine design in his teaching thus quietly and unostentatiously, that this prophecy might be fulfilled. The connection, therefore, looks especially to that part of the prophecy which is contained in Mat 12:19 f., but the Evangelist cites a larger portion, because the remainder also found a fulfilment in Jesus. The Jews expected the Messiah to be a great conqueror, whose warlike exploits would attract universal attention; and as the character and course of Jesus were quite the reverse of all this, it was important for Matthew’s purpose of convincing the Jews that he was Messiah, to point out that his action in this respect was in accordance with a Messianic prediction—all the more, as the current Septuagint translation had so interpolated the passage, as to turn away attention from its proper Messianic application (see on "Mat 12:18"). This quotation, from Isa 42:1-4, is made by Matthew alone, being the seventh prophecy he cites, as fulfilled in Jesus (compare on Mat 8:17), besides the two with reference to John the Baptist. (Mat 3:3, Mat 11:10) It is quite characteristic of the two first Gospels, that while Matthew alone gives the prophecy, Mark (Mar 3:7-12) gives much more copious details of the withdrawal and the healings.

Mat 12:18-21. This interesting quotation is partly from the Septuagint, but with various alterations, for the sake of close conformity to the Hebrew, or to bring out more clearly the Messianic application. Isa 42:1-4 may be literally translated from the Hebrew as follows: "Behold my servant, whom I will sustain; my chosen (one) in whom my soul delights. I put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He will not cry out, he will not lift up (his voice), he will not cause his voice to be heard abroad (or, ’out of doors’). A bruised reed he will not break, and a dim wick he will not quench. He will bring forth judgment unto truth. He will not grow dim like the wick, i.e., become feeble, faint, nor be broken like the reed, i.e., broken down, disheartened, till he set judgment in the earth; and for his law (or, ’instruction’) distant coasts shall wait." Now compare Matthew. Behold my servant. The ’servant of Jehovah,’ in Isa 42:19, is primarily Israel. But here, as in Hos 11:1, and elsewhere, there is a typical relation between Israel and Messiah (compare above on Mat 2:15); and the ’servant of Jehovah’ also means Messiah. Some of Isaiah’s expressions refer equally well to either, Israel or Messiah; in others, as Isa 52:13, and Isaiah 53, the reference to Israel seems to sink out of sight, and to our eye there appears nothing but Messiah. (Compare at the beginning of Matthew 24.) The Septuagint translators, understanding Isa 42:1 of Israel, inserted the name, "Jacob, my servant.... Israel my chosen." The Greek word here rendered ’servant’ in Matthew and Sept., is pais (see on "Mat 8:6"), which might of itself mean either ’child’ (Tyndale, Cram), or ’servant’ (Geneva, Com. Ver.); but the Hebrew, here and. elsewhere in Isaiah, is ebed, which unambiguously means ’servant.’ In like manner the question is settled as to Act 3:13, Act 3:26, Act 4:27, Act 4:30, by the manifest reference to this portion of Isa. Whom I have chosen, while the Hebrew has ’will sustain.’ Matthew may have purposely used the term ’have chosen’ from Isa 43:10; Isa 44:1, as better bringing out the Messianic reference in the term ’servant of the Lord.’ It was certainly lawful for an inspired writer to express more clearly in his quotation an idea that was really present in the prophet’s language. (Compare on Mat 2:6) God will sustain this servant of his, because he has chosen him, to perform an important work. So as to my beloved, instead of Hebrew ’my chosen.’ The expression ’is well pleased’ reminds us of the words spoken from heaven at the baptism and the transfiguration, which probably alluded to this passage of Isaiah (See above on "Mat 3:17".) I will put my Spirit upon him, i.e., in a special, remarkable degree. (Com. Isa 61:1 Luk 4:18 Joh 3:34, and see above on "Mat 3:16".) And he shall shew (will declare) judgment to the Gentiles. ’Announce’ or ’declare’ (as in Heb 2:12) interprets the general term ’bring forth’ of the Hebrew. ’Judgment’ exactly translates the Hebrew word. It might have been understood as meaning justice and rectitude in general. (Mat 23:23 Luk 11:42) But it is better to take it, in the prophecy and here, as denoting the whole body of what God declares to be just and right. (Compare Isa 51:4) Strive, or ’wrangle,’ may have been chosen by Matthew to contrast Jesus with the Scribes, who were constantly disputing and wrangling; perhaps also (Plumptre) to contrast him with "false prophets and leaders of revolt, such as Judas of Galilee had been." In the streets, gives greater distinctness to the Hebrew phrase; he would not talk in public places, in a way designed to attract attention. (Compare Mat 6:5) If on such an occasion as Joh 7:37, Jesus ’stood and cried out’ in the temple court, it was not through ostentation, lint for the good of those by whom he would make himself heard. A bruised reed shall he not break, completely break, break off. And smoking flax (a wick), literally, smoking linen. The lamp wick was usually a strip of linen; when there was but little oil, it would burn dimly and smoke. Instead of being a harsh conqueror and monarch, Messiah would be gentle and kind; persons bowed down with conscious unworthiness, feeble as if verging toward spiritual extinction, he would not overwhelm and destroy, but would console and strengthen. Till he send—or bring—forth judgment unto victory. The prophecy is quoted in a condensed form. The play upon words in the Hebrew, He will not grow dim (like the wick), nor be broken (like the reed), could not be made fully intelligible in a translation without tedious circumlocution, and as that clause was not important to the present fulfilment of the prophecy, Matthew omits it. He then combines, to some extent, the two brief clauses, ’he will bring forth judgment unto truth’ (i.e., truthfully, thoroughly, so that the whole truth about it should be known), and ’until he set judgment in the earth’ (i.e., establish it), in each of which clauses the leading term is ’judgment,’ i.e., God’s righteous requirements. The result is this expression, ’till he send forth judgment unto victory,’ i.e., victoriously, which includes the two notions of its being fully manifested and fully established. The Evangelist thus avoids complexity, and comprises the whole in one simple expression. ’Send forth’ is literally thrust forth, cast abroad, the word explained on Mat 9:38; and its notion of forcible action fits the following term victory. Messiah will overcome all obstacles and opposition, and victoriously proclaim and establish God’s word. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust, or hope.[1] (Compare Rom 15:12) Here the Evangelist follows the Septuagint, which was sufficiently accurate for his purpose (compare on Mat 3:3); nay, which states more clearly than the Hebrew expressions a notion specially appropriate to the gospel, and which the Hebrew really contained. The Hebrew word rendered ’isles’ or ’coasts’ is frequently used for distant lands in general (Isa 41:1, Isa 41:5; Isa 49:1; Isa 51:5), so that ’nations,’ or Gentiles (see on "Mat 4:15"), is in such a case equivalent to it. The Hebrew ’shall wait for his law’ meant shall confidently expect or hope for his instruction. (Isa 1:10 Pro 1:4, Pro 4:2, Pro 7:2) (Compare Toy on Quotations.) The Sept. substituted ’name’ and Matthew retained it, since ’hope in his name’ amounted to much the same thing as ’wait for his instruction,’ both denoting dependence on him. Alexander: "As the first part of the prophecy was cited as an introduction, so this last part was added to give roundness and completeness to the whole quotation. At the same time these supplementary expressions, although not what the author meant especially to quote, serve the incidental but important purpose of suggesting, in the language of a prophet, the extent of the Messiah’s mission and the ultimate conversion of the Gentiles." Where Matt. departs from both Hebrew and Sept. it is surely quite as easy to refer the changes to the inspired Evangelist himself, as to a hypothetical oral Aramaic version used in the synagogue. (Toy.)—With this prophetic description of Messiah, compare what Jesus says of himself in Mat 11:29. How different was his quiet course of life from the turbulent violence of those pretended Messiahs, who frequently involved the nation in confusion and distress.

[1] There is an intimate connection between the ideas of hope and trust, though really quite distinct, and the words are often confounded in popular speech. Tyndale, Cram, Gen., and King James (not Wyc., nor commonly Rheims) seem to have thought ’hope’ often an inadequate translation of the corresponding Gr. word, so that they commonly render by ’trust’ (as here), and even by ’believe’ in 1Co 15:19 (T. C. G.) and 1Ti 4:10. (T. C.) The noun they all regularly translate ’hope,’ except ’trust’ in 1Co 3:12 (T. C. G.), and in Heb 10:23, where Com. Ver. actually has ’faith,’ though all the others there have ’hope.’ The popular phrase "profession of faith" is perhaps founded on this erroneous translation of Heb 10:23. In like manner 1Pe 3:15 is often quoted ’a reason of the faith that is in you,’ though it is really ’hope.’ The Rev. Ver. has rendered both noun and verb by ’hope’ in all eases, sometimes ’set your hope’ or the like. Examine especially Luk 24:21, Joh 5:45, 1Ti 6:17, Heb 10:23, 1Pe 3:5.

Homiletical And Practical

In the Christian world at the present day, we may find two extremes in respect to the observance of the Sabbath, as well as to many other things. Some act as if the Mosaic regulations for the manner of observing the Sabbath were still in force, and so they are excessively strict, and unwisely scrupulous. Others imagine that when the civil and ceremonial law ceased to be binding, the Sabbath also ceased to be obligatory, and so they come to hold very loose notions as to abstaining from ordinary employments on the Lord’s Day. One class incline to condemn all enjoyment on the Sabbath, at home or abroad; the other class are in danger of making it a day of mere idleness and festivity. Some make no distinction between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian; others, in urging that the Lord’s Day is wholly different from the Jewish Sabbath, forget that it is nevertheless the same as the primeval Sabbath, with only an additional significance and a change in the day of the week. It is a day "hallowed" by divine appointment-distinguished from other days, and set apart to sacred uses; a day of rest from ordinary toils, bodily and mental, of worship and other distinctively religious employments. In an age when reading occupies so large a part of civilized life, it would certainly seem important to abstain on the Lord’s Day from secular reading, especially since we have so rich a store of properly religious literature. In deciding how far to deny ourselves exercise, society, table luxuries, and the like, we must have regard both to the objects of the day, to our own bodily, mental, and spiritual health, and to the influence of our example. As regards children, it is extremely important to afford them interesting and appropriate employment, and pleasant food, so that they may not find the day wearisome and disagreeable. In general it should be remembered that most of us are far more likely to be too lax than too stringent, that we gravitate much more powerfully towards self-indulgence than self-denial.

Mat 12:2. Henry: "It is no new thing for the most harmless and innocent actions of Christ’s disciples to be evil spoken of and reflected upon as unlawful, especially by those who are zealous for their own inventions and impositions,"

Mat 12:5. Henry: "Ignorance of the meaning of the Scripture is especially shameful in those who take upon them to teach others."

Mat 12:8. Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, and the Christian Sabbath is the Lord’s Day. Rev 1:10.

Rev 1:1-8. The ceremonial and the moral elements of Christian piety. (1) Ceremony must yield to necessity, Mat 12:3 f. (2) Worship is superior to any sacredness of place or time, Mat 12:5 f., compare Joh 4:21. (3) Kindly and just judgment of others is more acceptable to God than are ceremonial observances, Mat 12:7. (4) Christ is above all ceremonies, Mat 12:8

Mat 12:9-14. Baffled disputants. (1) They seek to entrap the Teacher with a question, Mat 12:10. (2) They are unable to answer his argument, Mat 12:11 f., compare Mat 3:6. (3) They can find no fault with his action, Mat 12:13. (4) Therefore they plot to kill him.

Mat 12:13. godet: "Like every call addressed to faith, this command contained a promise of the strength necessary to accomplish it, provided the will to obey was there. He must make the attempt, depending on the word of Jesus, and divine power will accompany the effort." Theophyl.: "Many now also have their hands withered—that is, not compassionating and not communicating; but whenever they hear the gospel word, they stretch forth their hands to give."

Mat 12:15. Theophyl: "Plunging into danger is not pleasing to God."

Mat 12:19 f. The quiet and gentle character here ascribed to Messiah by the prophet, corresponds to what Jesus said of himself, meek and lowly and rest-giving, Mat 11:20.

Mat 11:18-20. A prophetic picture of the Saviour. (1) A chosen and beloved servant of God, Mat 12:18. (2) Specially endued with the Spirit of God, Mat 12:18. (3) Quiet in teaching, and compassionate to the timid and distressed, Mat 12:19 f. (4) Destined to be victorious in proclaiming God’s righteousness, and winning the nations to himself, Mat 12:18, Mat 12:20, Mat 12:21.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. The Rejection Consummated and the Broken Relationship.

CHAPTER 12

1. The Hungry Disciples and the Accusing Pharisees. (Mat 12:1-9.)

2. The Man with the Withered Hand Healed.(Mat 12:10-13.)

3. The Hatred of the Pharisees.(Mat 12:14.)

4. The King in Rejection. (Mat 12:15-21.)

5. The Demon Possessed Man Healed. (Mat 12:22-23.)

6. The Blasphemy of the Pharisees and the King’s Answer. (Mat 12:24-37.)

7. The Sign of Jonas and his Warning Prediction. (Mat 12:38-45.)

8. The Broken Relationship. (Mat 12:46-50.)

The twelfth chapter brings before us the full manifestation of the enmity of Israel against our Lord and His rejection by His own.

It is the great turning point in this Gospel and with it the offer of our Lord to Israel as their King, as well as the offer of the Kingdom ceases. We have followed the story of our Lord manifesting Himself as Jehovah the King. Everything in the first part of this royal Gospel proves Him to be the promised One. Speaking not like the Pharisees and the Scribes, but with authority, He had declared the principles of the Kingdom He came to bring.

Going through the cities of Galilee, He and His disciples had preached the Kingdom of the Heavens to be at hand. Multitudes had heard the glad and solemn announcement.

These glad tidings were backed up by the most startling signs. The blind saw, the lepers were cleansed, demons were driven out and the dead were raised. There could be only one explanation for these miracles.

Every one of them proved conclusively that Jehovah had visited His people; He whose name is “Immanuel” had appeared in their midst. Old Testament predictions of the coming of the Messiah, the manner of His coming and His works were being fulfilled before the eyes of that generation yet they did not and would not recognize Him. They remained cold and indifferent. They had no heart for Jehovah-Jesus. This in itself was a fulfillment of prophecy. And so we learn in the eighth chapter that a Gentile showed greater faith than the Lord had found in Israel and our Lord indicates the immediate future of the children of the Kingdom. They were to be cast out and others from the East and the West were to come and sit down in the Kingdom of the Heavens with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The murmuring of the Pharisees, first heard when he healed the paralytic and forgave him his sins, was the first outbreak against Him. And now the storm we saw in its threatening is to break. The awful blasphemy is uttered and the King declares in His sovereign power the relationship between Him the King and the Kingdom people broken. It is now clear that the Kingdom of the Heavens, so fully revealed in the Old Testament, is to be postponed till the Son of Man comes again. After this rejection of the King and His turning away from His own, He revealed the Kingdom of the Heavens in mysteries. He shows, as the Revealer of Secrets, the history of what He brings and makes known, the Kingdom in the hands of men and the development of it during His absence from the earth. And so we read immediately following the 12th chapter, “And that same day Jesus went out from the house and sat down by the sea.” He left the house; breaking off His relationship and taking His place by the sea -- (a type of the Gentiles).

And now we are ready to look a little closer at the sad events before us in the important twelfth chapter.

The first paragraph, contained in eight verses, shows us our Lord manifesting Himself as Lord of the Sabbath and answering the charge of the Pharisees, who accused them of Sabbath breaking. “At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath through the cornfields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck the ears and to eat. But the Pharisees, seeing it, said to Him, Behold, Thy disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” It was “at that time,” at the time of that loving call to come unto Him, which stands at the close of the eleventh chapter. When divine love was full of solicitude for the burdened and the poor, the evil hearts of the enemies were ready to attack Him.

The Sabbath, the seventh day, is something essentially Jewish, the peculiar day for the peculiar people. Its keeping is embodied in the ten commandments. The seventh day was, and is to the present day, a matter of great importance with the Jew. He prides himself with it and boasts in the strict keeping of it. Not satisfied with the plain fourth commandment in the decalogue, the Jewish elders added their injunctions forbidding even the smallest matters and entering into details which are ridiculous. These human traditions were in the days of our Lord strictly followed. The religious Pharisee saw to its enforcement and they put these burdens upon the people and tried to establish their own righteousness. To take ears of corn and eat them on the Sabbath is nowhere forbidden in the law given through Moses. Among many other injunctions the leaders of traditions had added this to the Word of God and made it a sin should anyone pluck an ear of corn on the seventh day.

Before we continue with the story of this chapter we desire to add here a few words, which may prove helpful to some of our readers. Not a few Christian believers have been annoyed, as well as disturbed, by a class of professing Christians who have added to their denominational names, as a special distinction, the term “Seventh day.” Thus we find about us “Seventh Day Baptists” and “Seventh Day Adventists,” as well as others whose chief endeavor seems to be to preach the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath. These sects, who defend the seventh day as a Christian institution, are nearly all infested with other serious evil doctrines, such as soul sleep, second probation, universalism and others. The root of this error of Sabbath keeping is the ignorance of these people of the fact that the believer in Christ has not the law, the ten commandments, for his rule, but the believer in Christ is dead to the law, and as a new creation is completely severed from that which is old, as well as from all earthly connections. The believer in Christ is above the law. He is complete and perfect in Christ. The rule for his walk is Christ Himself, by whom he is indwelt. The Sabbath, the seventh day, is connected with the earth and with Israel, but the believer is not Israel, nor does he belong to the earth, but Grace has lifted him into heaven. It is quite true there is a Sabbath day and this day is the seventh day of the week. But there is no Sabbath keeping now as regards Israel and the earth. The great and true Sabbath is still coming.

The question might then be asked, “Has the Christian believer no Sabbath day to keep?” The answer is, No. If we speak of a Sabbath day then surely it must mean the seventh day, and if we desire to keep the Sabbath day holy we must keep not the first day of the week but the seventh day. But some will say, “the Sabbath has been changed from the last day of the week to the first day.” This is often said; but there’s no scriptural authority for it. Neither Christ nor His apostles declared such a change. It is, therefore, wrong to call the first day of the week, known by the name “Sunday,” the Sabbath or “Christian Sabbath.” The first day of the week is the Lord’s day, the day of resurrection, the day of the new creation. This day was kept in the very beginning of the Christian age as a precious memorial of Him who was dead and was raised from the dead, who is seated in the Highest Heaven and who is coming again. It was with the early Christians, and should be so still, a day of worship, when they came together to break bread and partake of the blessed cup, to show the Lord’s death, till He come again. Some one has expressed it in the following short sentences: “ Israel was commanded to observe the Sabbath day; the church is privileged to enjoy the first day of the week. The former was the test of Israel ‘s moral condition; the latter is the significant proof of the Church’s eternal acceptance. The Sabbath day manifested what Israel could do for God; the Lord’s day perfectly declares what God has done for us.”

There is no law about this blessed first day of the week. The Christian believer is in perfect liberty, with no yoke and bondage upon him. “For ye have been called to liberty, brethren; only do not turn liberty into an opportunity to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal 5:15). The child of God will know how to use this liberty in the right way and will certainly have the first day of the week as a day of rejoicing in the Lord and fellowship with Him.

A strange sight indeed it is to see the nominal church attempting by political influences, legislation, police activities, to force the world to keep the Sabbath day on the first day of the week. As if it were the calling of the church to enforce laws and as if the world could be made to keep the Sabbath. What a deplorable mixture! What an awful confusion!

And now after this disgression we come back to our chapter. The human way of answering the objections of the Pharisees would have been to tell them that there was no law forbidding the deed done by the disciples. In a few words He might have informed them not alone of the invalidity of their traditions, but also of the sin they had committed by adding to the Word of God. However, this is not the way divine wisdom chooses to silence their accusations. Perhaps they expected in their Satanic device some such answer, which they would have used against Him. The answer they hear from His lips, the lips of the Lawgiver Himself, is a different one than they expected. It reveals His divinity, Hint the perfect one in knowledge, as does every other answer He gave to His enemies in this Gospel, silencing their temptings at every instance. When He met Satan, as we learned from the fourth chapter, He used as weapon the Word of God, His own Word. Now He meets the offspring of vipers, the children of the enemy, and the weapon He uses is the same. He wields once more the Sword of the Spirit and answers their unscriptural objections by His scriptural assertions. May we learn from it, and at all times, whether it is the Devil or his offspring which tempt us, use the Word in our defense. And thus He spake: “Have ye not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were hungry? How he entered into the house of God, and ate the shewbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only? Or have ye not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless? But I say unto you, that there is here what is greater than the temple. But if ye had known what is: I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

The incident quoted by our Lord from David’s life we find recorded in 1Sa 21:1-15. How then is this incident to be applied? David was forced, as the rejected one, though God’s anointed king, to enter the house of God and do what was not lawful for him to do. David’s hunger and the hunger of those who were with him is but a type of the greater One than David and His disciples passing through the cornfield hungry and obliged to pluck ears of corn to eat. The sad scene on that Sabbath day was evidence enough that the people did not care for the little group headed by the King. When David was rejected and a fugitive, the holy things connected with the ceremonials given to Israel by God ceased to be holy. The sin was David’s rejection, and this made the consecrated shewbread common, as David said to the High Priest, “the bread is, as it were common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel” (1Sa 21:5). The rejection of God’s anointed had profaned all. This is the thought our Lord expressed to the Pharisees. They had rejected Him. They had no love for Him nor cared for Him. How ridiculous for these hyprocrites to speak of Sabbathkeeping when they were rejecting the Lord of the Sabbath! They were straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. How much of this pharisaical, hypocritical spirit we have about us in Christendom. The divinity of the Bible, as well as the Lord and His redemption work, is denied by many professing Christians, who hold still outward forms, rituals, keeping of holidays and ceremonials. But even the priests profaned the Sabbath and were blameless. What did our Lord mean by this? The priests had to bring sacrifices on the Sabbath day. “And on the Sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two-tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof” -- thus the law commanded (Num 28:9). This demanded work, and according to the law and their interpretation of it, it was forbidden on the Sabbath, yet the priests, though they profaned the Sabbath, were held blameless. Grace was fully typified in these sacrifices and Grace working is above the law and does away with the legal covenant. Our Lord surely indicates here the time when laws and ceremonials were to find their end in Him who is “greater than the temple.” He had come as the true priest and the true sacrifice to do that which the blood of bulls and goats could never do; that is, to take away sin and bring the Sabbath, the rest. He is the Lord of the Sabbath and that as Son of Man, in His humiliation and in His exaltation. But alas! they would not understand Him nor know what it meant, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” There was no answer from the Pharisees. The declaration of Himself as the Lord of the Sabbath, the One who is above the Sabbath, must have inflamed the hatred in their hearts still more. And so we see Him going away from thence. However, He did not turn His back upon them. It is a lingering, patient love we learn of Him here. He turns His blessed feet towards their synagogue. How reluctant to leave them in their dreadful condition of enmity against Him!

A man is present with a withered hand. They desire now to find some new ground of accusation again Him. Their first attempt had failed. He had read their evil thoughts, and by His answer He had shown that He anticipated the question they now put to Him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Awful motive, which stands alongside of the question, showing the depths of Satan “that they might accuse Him.” The question also discloses the fact that they believed in His healing power. We may well imagine the scene in that synagogue. The Lord in His divine calmness, the unfortunate man with the withered hand, the malicious, accusing Pharisees with their Satanic desire. And now the stillness broken by His voice, “What man shall there be of you who has one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and raise it up?” There was no answer; of course none could stand up and declare he would not deliver his one sheep out of the pit. “How much better then is a man than a sheep! So that it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath.” What a divine logic! How unanswerable this statement!

But it is not His Word alone. He has divine power to heal him who has heard His words. His glory as Jehovah, the King Immanuel, is to shine forth once more. He says to the man, “Stretch out thy hand!” Faith answers to His Word, and he stretcheth it out, and it was restored sound as the other. It was faith to stretch out a withered hand in answer to His Word and precious are the lessons we may learn from it for the life by faith to which we are called, ever living and acting in obedience to His Word. Yet we pass over that which is so plainly seen on the surface and add but a few words of what this miracle stands for in this dispensational Gospel. The man with the withered hand is a type of poor, withered Israel, withered spiritually and nationally. He had come to restore, but, unlike the man, Israel had no faith. Yet the day is coming when Israel will answer in faith and healing will follow.

The Pharisees beaten by His words and deed go out of the synagogue. In their dark councils for the first time they came together to find a way how to destroy Him.

How great the blindness which began to settle upon them! How could they destroy Him, who had raised the dead? How could they take His life, who is the true God and the eternal life? And even if there and then, in their dark counsels, they had found a way, according to their conception, to destroy Him, they could never have touched His life, for our Lord’s body was not subject to mortality, His body in His humiliation was immortal, for He knew no sin. And while they kept their blind endeavors to themselves, He was not ignorant of it. “But Jesus, knowing it, withdrew thence, and great crowds followed Him and He healed them all and charged them strictly that they should not make Him publicly known” (Mat 12:15-16). The withdrawal of Himself from the scene and the presence of the Pharisees indicated His withdrawal from the nation itself, the result of His rejection.

This is made clear by the quotation from the Scriptures which follows: “That that might be fulfilled which was spoken through Esaias the prophet, saying: “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom my soul has found its delight. I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show forth judgment to the nations. He shall not strive or cry out, nor shall anyone hear His voice in the streets; a bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, until He bringeth forth judgment unto victory; and in His name shall the nations hope” (Mat 12:17-21). These verses are found in Isa 42:1-4. He who knew the Scriptures and who had come to fulfill the prophecies relating to His sufferings, whose constant desire was to do the will of Him who sent Him, that the Scripture might be fulfilled -- what comfort and encouragement must have come to Him through these words, which His own Spirit had revealed to Isaiah. The rejection of Him by His own was imminent. They were turning away from Him and accusing Him, but He knew Himself as the chosen One, the Beloved, His Father’s love and delight upon Him. Thus in the midst of the enemies with their wicked accusations and persecutions He could be calm, His perfect trust in Him, whose Beloved He was, well pleasing to Him.

Our way, as His own, should not be different from this. In the midst of tribulations and adversities, surrounded by the enemy, we can be calm, and more than that, rejoice.

He, as the servant of Jehovah, did not strive. Why should He strive as the One who put His trust in Jehovah? And thus it is written of the servant, His follower, “the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all.” (2Ti 2:24.) Gentleness as foretold was to be found in Him. How gentle and loving He must have been? Can we ever think too much of His patience and gentleness? The bruised reed He did not break. The weakest thing He took tenderly in His hands. The smoking flax was not quenched by Him. In the Epistle of our practical walk in Christ we are exhorted, “let your gentleness be known of all men.” (Php 4:5). He in us will reproduce the very same characteristic in our lives here on the earth.

But the force of the quotation lies in the fact that the Gentiles, the nations are mentioned. The fulfillment in its completeness will take place, no doubt, at the time of His second Coming, but here the Holy Spirit uses it in still another way. Israel had begun to reject Him and now the Gentiles shall hear of God’s gift and grace. The passage is introduced by the Spirit of God in a way as He only could do it.

Another one possessed by a demon is brought before Him. Most likely He had returned from the withdrawal recorded above, and once more the Pharisees are present. The possessed one is blind and dumb. Was he not a perfect picture of the nation Israel? Blind and dumb was their condition. Again He manifests Himself as Lord and He healed the demon possessed man, so that the dumb spoke and saw. No wonder that all the crowds were amazed and said, “Is this the Son of David?” They must have meant by this cry the Messiah, for they expected Him under the title of the Son of David. Still the question also implies doubt.

And here they stand again, these dark and cunning Pharisees. They have heard it. Perhaps the cry, “Is this the Son of David?” reached their ear. Moved with jealousy, anger, malice and Satanic hatred against Him whose omnipotent power was once more manifested, they said: “This man does not cast out demons but by Beelzebub, prince of demons.”

The accusation had been made before by them (Mat 9:34) when it was passed over by the Lord, but now, after the repeated manifestations of His power, after their hatred culminated in seeking His life, the awful blasphemy is to be rebuked by Him. Cowards they were, as it is seen that they did not dare to bring the accusation to His face. How could they dare to stand before Him? So He reads again their very thoughts, a miracle in itself, which should have startled them. His answer to their Satanic thoughts consists in two very logical arguments. “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not subsist. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom subsist?” (Mat 12:25-26). This is very clear. Satan casting out Satan would mean a division in his awful domain, which would mean its complete ruin and overthrow. It is, therefore, inconceivable that the Devil could furnish the power to destroy his own kingdom which he controls. The passage is full of meaning aside from the argument it contains. He who knoweth all things in perfect knowledge tells us that Satan is a person and a king, for he has a kingdom over which he rules. The demons are in his kingdom, one with the head in thought and purpose. (The translation “devils” is not correct. There is one devil, but the fallen angels are demons.) How little we know of his awful power, of his kingdom and the agencies at his command to destroy body and soul. We need not know it all, it is sufficient to know that he is an enemy overcome, his kingdom is spoiled by the victor, by Him who has annulled him, who has the power of death, that is the Devil.

Higher Criticism claims that our Lord acquiesced in the legendary belief of the Jews, a belief they had picked up in Babylon, that there existed a personal Devil and demons under him. This foolish, infidel theory, which is nowadays held by so many preachers and theological professors, is almost as blasphemous as the accusation of the Pharisees. If our Lord knew better than what the Jews held, and He did not correct their views, and if He did not know that their belief was incorrect, then in neither case could He be divine. This is Higher Criticism, the denial of the infallibility and divinity of the living and the written Word. The second argument against their evil thoughts is the following:

“And if I cast out demons, by Beelzebub, your sons by whom do they cast them out? For this reason they shall be your judges” (Mat 12:27).

Among the Jews there were and are still such who profess to be exorcists, men who claim to have power to cast out demons. We cannot follow certain traditional teachings of the Jews concerning exorcism at this time. Some of them were wandering exorcists, going from place to place professing to cast out demons. Such are they who are mentioned in Act 19:13: “And certain of the Jewish exorcists also, who went about, took in hand to call upon those who had wicked spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches.” Perhaps those who are mentioned elsewhere, who drove out demons using the name of the Lord and did not follow Him, were exorcists. Certain it is the Lord did not mean His own disciples upon whom He had conferred the power to cast out demons in His name; He meant the school of Pharisees, who practiced, or claimed to practice, exorcism. The question put to them by our Lord demanded an answer which they cared not to give, for it would have been to their own condemnation.

And so He continues with His perfect argumentation, driving it home to their hearts, as only He could do it. “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the Kingdom of God is come upon you.” It is impossible that Satan could cast out Satan. There remains, then, only one other alternative; the Spirit of God casts out the demons. Then, indeed, the Kingdom is come upon you in the person of the King who manifests this power. Alas! they knew it, but they would not have Him and the Kingdom He preached.

And still His voice is heard: “Or else, can anyone enter into the house of the strong man and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.”

The strong man is Satan, but the Lord, stronger than Satan, had bound him and has the power to enter his domain and take away his prey. Who then is He who bound the enemy? Perhaps His voice rested here. Perhaps He waited for an answer. “Thou art Christ the Son of the living God” would have been in order here.

And stronger still He speaks. “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters.” He demands decision. Half-heartedness does not satisfy Him and in face of such open-faced accusations and blasphemies would be impossible. It was an appeal to decide. In our day in which we live, out and out decision is not less demanded. Phariseeism and Sadduceeism, the leaven is working about us and to be undecided is paramount with dishonoring His own glorious person.

“For this reason I say unto you, every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one.”

Much has been said and written on this passage and on the question of the unpardonable sin. Many who had lived in open sin and worldly lusts, having been arrested by the grace of God, almost despaired for they feared they had committed that sin and now in spite of their repentance forgiveness was an impossibility for them. This wrong conclusion is often preached in so called “revival meetings” to bring sinners to accept Christ. Believers who fell in sin likewise have thought that after sinning with open eyes, wilfully, they had been guilty of the unpardonable sin. How many poor, ignorant souls have grieved for weeks and months thinking the Holy Spirit had now left them for good. But the Holy Spirit once given to the believer in believing on Christ has come as the abiding Comforter. He has come to stay and never, no never, to leave that which He has sealed. The Spirit may be grieved, He may be quenched, but never can He be driven away so that the true believer would fall back and be lost.

This widespread doctrine of falling from grace in the sense of the believer’s possibility to be lost dishonors Christ and His work for us. But some one says: “Did not David pray: And take not the Holy Spirit from me?” Certainly he did, and it was in order for him to pray thus for the Holy Spirit might have left him, for He was not then in the earth with believers as the abiding comforter. The believer in the New Testament is never exhorted to pray to the Spirit to remain with him. He is to be filled with the Spirit and continually guard against grieving the Spirit or not to quench Him, but never to doubt His presence. All these wrong conceptions spring from a deplorable ignorance of the fundamentals of the blessed Gospel of the Grace of God.

And now what is this sin of which our Lord speaks here? In His coming to His own people, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were manifested. The Holy Spirit in His power was manifested through the Son, our Lord, upon whom He was in His fullness. The signs He did were not alone done in His own omnipotent power as Jehovah, they were the manifestation of the Holy Spirit likewise. And these Pharisees had sinned against this Holy Spirit by accusing Christ, that He drove out the demons by Satanic power. They had blasphemed the Spirit, spoken injuriously about Him, in saying that Beelzebub, the prince of demons, was present with Christ and not the Holy Spirit. This they did maliciously. And this and nothing else is the sin of which our Lord here speaks. The sin is to charge the Lord with doing His miracles through Satanic power and not through the Holy Spirit. We do believe, therefore, that this sin could only be committed as long as our Lord Jesus Christ was in the earth and that it was committed by the Pharisees with their blasphemies. This is the sin which would not be forgiven neither in this age nor in the coming one. In 1Jn 5:16-17, we read, “If any one see his brother sinning, a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life, for those that do not sin unto death. There is a sin to death. I do not say of that that he should make a request.” This is to be explained in the following way. The brother is a believer. On account of sinning he is chastised. God permits sickness to come upon him and the sinning not having been unto death (physical death only) he is raised up. However, a believer may go on wilfully sinning and remain there dishonoring Christ. He is to be taken away out of the land of the living, cut off by death. No request could be made for such a one. The question of death is not eternal condemnation but only physical death.

From the fact of the sin these Pharisees were doing, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the Lord now turns to the cause of this, the spring from which the evil comes. “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt. For from the fruit the tree is known. Offspring of vipers! how can ye speak good things, being wicked?” (Mat 12:33-34). The Searcher of hearts, He who understandeth the thoughts afar off, uncovers the real condition of these men and the condition of man in general. The tree is bad, the fruit must be bad. The tree must be made good, and that denotes a change, and the fruit will be good. “The heart is deceitful above all, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I, the Lord, search the heart” (Jer 17:9-10). He does it here and speaks of them as John, the forerunner did, as “offspring of vipers,” with wicked hearts and impossible to bring forth anything good. And, later, once more He spoke of the condition of the heart of man, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Mat 15:19). How little those Pharisees, and Sadducees as well, believed in this and how unwilling they were to accept the sentence and verdict of Him, who knoweth all things. They were given to their ceremonial, ritualistic observances, very scrupulous about their phylacteries and fringes of their garments, making long prayers, keeping the outside of the cup and the platter clean, but never acknowledging the condition of the heart before the Searcher of Hearts. Self-righteous, moral, religious and, with it all, “offspring of vipers.” All their religious observances and outward morality did not and could not effect a change. And so they stood before Him whose finger had written the law, boasting in the keeping of the law and rejecting the Lord, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

The leaven of the Pharisees is still at work. This leaven has leavened, indeed, the whole lump. Ritualistic, religious, moral Christendom, professing, and not possessing, is the direct descendant of the Pharisee of old and as such the offspring of vipers as much as they were. How little the radical, complete corruption of man is believed in Christendom, how little it is taught. Man with the good spark in him (as they claim), developing it by religiousness and the use of his own will, becomes and is his own Saviour. The Lord is looked upon not as Lord, but as Jesus of Nazareth, whose life is an example, while the atonement, the blood, is set aside and rejected. The wicked heart cannot bring forth good things. Fine and polished, sweet and harmonious, may be the language of the cultured, religious, unsaved man, but proceeding from an evil heart it can never please God. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things and the wicked man out of the wicked treasure brings forth wicked things. But I say unto you that every idle word which men shall say, they shall render an account of it in judgment day; for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Mat 12:35-37).

These words have been misunderstood and much misapplied and all this by wresting these words out of their connection. They are mostly applied in connection with that unscriptural phrase and doctrine, “universal judgment.” According to this, even the words will be weighed and judged, and only then in that hour of judgment, will it be known, according to this teaching, who will be saved and who is lost. Our Lord did not teach this here nor is it taught anywhere else. These Pharisees were proud of their works and were self-righteous. If they relied on their works as a means of their justification and salvation they have to expect a judgment accordingly; every idle word is to be judged, which means utter, absolute condemnation. Their words could not be good because they were wicked. May the self-righteous, religious man remember this. Absolute condemnation awaits him. Salvation is by grace, and by that salvation man receives a good treasure and brings forth good things. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth then speaks. Furthermore, the word “idle” means useless, barren. All that which man speaks out of himself is barren and useless. The believer, however, living after the Spirit, will not utter useless words, but that which is in honor of the Son of God. As believers, we should bear constantly in mind that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, not for a decision of eternal salvation, this was settled when the believer trusted in Christ, but for rewards. Surely then our deeds, our works and our words will be either approved or disapproved.

“By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” This has also a reference to the familiar passage in Rom 10:1-21: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” And wherever there is not this confession springing from the belief of the heart there is condemnation.

The scene is now drawing to its close. The hard-heartedness of the Pharisees is seen by some of them coming after such words, saying, Teacher, we desire to see a sign from Thee. Whatever evil design they had in asking him thus we do not know. He had done sign upon sign and they had ample proofs of His divinity. Upon such an evil, unbelieving request He can only utter His righteous indignation. So He calls them a wicked and adulterous generation. “A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonas the prophet. For, even as Jonas was in the great fish three days and three nights, thus shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. Ninevites shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold more than Jonas is here” (Mat 12:38-41). This is a most significant passage. How far the Pharisees believed the story of Jonas we do not know. The Sadducees no doubt rejected the book of Jonah, for they were the rationalists and critics of their day. It is significant for us in our day when the judgment to fall upon apostate Christendom is so near, nothing is more ridiculed than the book of Jonah and its sublime teachings. The Sadducees of the present day, the higher critics, assume to know more than the Lord, and by rejecting the book of Jonah as uninspired they reject the infallible Lord Himself. But why does our Lord mention Jonah here? Because Jonah is a type of the death and resurrection of our Lord. Jonah is the only prophet who was sent away from Israel ‘s land far unto the Gentiles, to the great and ungodly city of Nineveh. However, before he went there, he passed through a death experience and out of that grave in which he was brought he was taken again, a type of resurrection. Through it God brought salvation to the Gentiles, for Jonah, after his death and resurrection experience proclaimed the message of God. So the Lord was going away from Israel. He was soon to leave them, and the grace of God was to go out towards the Gentile world. Yet before that could be He had to go into the jaws of death, and, like Jonah, was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so was He to be the same length of time in the grave, but also to come forth in resurrection. He was preached, after His resurrection, to the Jew first; but while Nineveh repented after the message of Jonah, that wicked and adulterous generation did not repent of their course, after the preaching through Him, who is greater than Jonah. Therefore the Ninevites will rise up and condemn that generation. Jonah is likewise a type of the whole nation, which, however, is not before us in this chapter. (See our tract on “Jonah and the Whale,” where the dispensational side is expounded.) The Queen of Sheba also will condemn that generation, she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon and here stands He who is the Wisdom and they reject Him, who imparted to the wise King the wisdom he had.

And this is followed by a prediction by our Lord which concerns the future of that generation. “But when the unclean spirit has gone out of the man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and does not find it. Then he says, I will return to my house whence I came out; and having come he finds it unoccupied, swept and adorned. Then he goes and takes with himself seven other spirits worse than himself, and entering in, they dwell there; and the last condition of that man becomes worse than the first. Thus it shall be to this wicked generation also” (Mat 12:43-45). All kinds of interpretations and applications have been made of this prediction. It is, however, clear that there is but one application, and that is in respect to the unbelieving generation. “Thus shall it be to this wicked generation also” -- settles the point of application. Generation is certainly to be understood in the sense of race. The unclean spirit is idolatry. It had left the nation, and even now the nation is swept from that evil spirit and unoccupied, and boasts of reform. It will not be so forever. The unclean spirit will return and bring seven others with him and take possession of that house again, and the last condition, the end, becomes worse than the beginning. The return of the unclean spirit with its seven companions will take place during the great tribulation.

The end of the rejection of our Lord by His own has come. He has outlined their dreadful end, and to which Israel’s unbelief is rapidly leading on, and now follows a pathetic ending of this great crisis. “But while He was yet speaking to the crowds, behold His mother and His brethren stood without, seeking to speak to Him. Then one said to Him, Behold Thy mother and Thy brethren are standing without, seeking to speak to Thee. But He answered and said to him who had spoken to Him, Who is My mother and who are My brethren? And stretching out His hand to His disciples, He said, Behold My mother and My brethren; for whosoever shall do the will of My Father who is in the heavens, he is My brother and sister and mother.” From Mark’s Gospel we learn the possible reason of His relatives coming to Him. “And His relatives having heard of it went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, He is out of His mind” (Mar 3:21).

He refuses to see them. Behind this refusal stands the fact of a broken relationship. He no longer recognizes His own, and speaks of a new relationship, founded upon obedience to the will of His Father in the heavens.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:6

Christ Greater than the Church.

I. Looking first at the things essential in the structure of the Church, I shall show what Christ is in relation to these. The essential things in the structure of the Church are: (1) The plan. The plan of the Christian Church is that of a temple. Christ, before the Church, was the Dwelling-place, the real Shechinah, the true primal home of the light which is to enlighten the world, the very, the incarnate Temple of God upon the earth, in His twofold nature and one Divinely-human personality; He was the very plan, pattern, and idea of the temple which the Christian Apostles proclaimed. (2) The foundation. The foundation of the Church is more than apostolic testimony, more even than inspired truth, more than any event, however supernatural or sacred. The foundation is Christ Himself. He is the Gospel, the Cross, the Resurrection. He is God manifest, God near, God showing mercy, God rising from the dead, God offering life and peace and resurrection to the world. (3) The materials of which it is composed. Christ is the life whose life is in every stone of the temple. There is nothing mean or small or trivial among these materials which make up Christ’s house, because His worth ennobles the whole.

II. Consider the Lord’s greatness in relation to the functions of the Church. These are: (1) Culture. By this we understand its internal growth in Christian excellence. Christ is everything to the Church in this process. He is the Truth, that liberates, purifies, and elevates. (2) Conquest. The power by which the Church operates is not her own, but Christ’s. The commission of the Master contains the assertion of His pre-eminence. The presence which accompanies and cheers the messenger is the presence of Christ Himself. "Lo, I am with you alway." (3) Worship. The Church is a "spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God." The Church lays on the altar her thoughts, prayers, affections, capacities, gifts, achievements, the entire life of her whole membership of every individual; and she offers up these as sacrifices; but the soul and inner life of these sacrifices is thankfulness for Christ. This is the deepest fact in Christian worship.

A. Macleod, Days of Heaven upon Earth, p. 140.

References: Mat 12:1-14.—A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 88. Mat 12:3-7.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv., No. 1503. Mat 12:6.—Ibid., vol. xxii., No. 1275; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 292; J. B. French, Ibid., vol. xxxi., p. 269. Mat 12:7.—J. P. Gledstone, Ibid., vol. xxi., p. 301.

Mat 12:8

I. Note the title Jesus gives Himself: "the Son of man." He applied this phrase to Himself in all the different aspects of His great life. While He deemed His equality with God not a thing to be clutched at, He claimed, in humanity’s name, more than an equality with men. In Him, as the Son of man, humanity is again restored to its sonship of God. It is the child alone who can show the father in the fatherly relationship; the neighbour can show the neighbour, the work the worker. When the Christ said, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," He claimed to have done something so appalling in itself, and in its consequences, as to dwarf the most notable of His miracles. Christ was all-human, whatever else we believe Him to be. The pure ever lives in the all, not in the part. But whence this authority with nature which Christ possessed, which was equal to the suffering of hunger within Himself, and to feed a multitude with five loaves? If it be only the triumph of the universal man in the Son of man, the triumph is so complete as to constitute Him our King and our God. For He besets us behind and before, and lays His hand upon us; we can look neither within nor without, without beholding symbols of His might, and turn neither to our past nor our future without seeing that the fortune of our race is in His hand.

II. The claim He makes on His own behalf, as "Lord even of the Sabbath day." This is but one of the many claims which Jesus made, and by which He asserted His authority to be greater, if not higher in kind, than had ever been arrogated by man before. Authority and obedience meet in Christ, and blend. He is the atonement of the Great Father with His many children. Father and child meet and kiss each other again in Him, and are at peace. And man, if he be an hungred, can pluck the corn on the Sabbath day in the presence of the God who "will have mercy, and not sacrifice."

J. O. Davies, Sunrise on the Soul, p. 233.

Reference: Mat 12:9-21.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. viii., p. 114.

Mat 12:12

There are few things in our Lord’s teaching more interesting to notice than the enormous value which He puts upon man. Again and again He reminds us, as though we were ready to forget it, of the glory and dignity of our being. Notice a series of points in respect of which a man is better than a sheep.

I. I might mention, first of all, even his physical form and beauty. Well does the inspired Apostle liken man’s body to a stately temple, well-proportioned, and perfect in all its parts. In a thousand ways it excels that of the lower creation, and proclaims that man is better and nobler than they. Are you, then, going to take that noble and beautiful form, and make it the instrument of sin? Are you going to desecrate a temple so fair? This is just what many are doing, bringing themselves down to the level of the brutes that perish, and turning their glory into shame.

II. Secondly, a man is better than a sheep, because he is endowed with reason. The true glory of man consists not in the speed with which he can run, nor the number of pounds’ weight he can lift, nor the strong wrestlers he can throw; for in these respects even the ostrich and the ass and the lion easily outmatch him. And yet what compensation intellect provides! There is no point in respect to which the brute excels us where reason does not enable us far to excel the brute. The man who leaves his mind fallow, who does not call into vigorous exercise the reasoning powers with which he is endowed, fails to realize his distinguished place in creation, and brings himself down to the level of the cattle in the field.

III. A man is better than a sheep, because he is endowed with a moral nature. He is an accountable and responsible being. Even the fact that he has it in his power to do wrong proclaims his exalted place in creation. A sheep cannot sin; but that is not because it is a superior, but because it is an inferior creature to us.

IV. How much is a man better than a sheep, when you consider his capacity of progress! In this respect he stands alone in creation, so far as it presents itself to our view.

V. How much is a man better than a sheep, in respect to his spiritual nature and his capacity for knowing God!

VI. How much is a man better than a sheep, because he is possessed of immortality! The dumb creatures of the meadow live their little life and die, and there is an end of them; but man has an existence that knows no end.

VII. A man is better than a sheep, because Christ died for him. He who made man and stamped His own image on him deemed him worth an infinite sacrifice, and spared not His own Son for his redemption.

J. Thain Davidson, Talks with Young Men, p. 147.

References: Mat 12:10-12.—T. Birkett Dover, The Ministry of Mercy, p. 130. Mat 12:10-13.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv., No. 1485. Mat 12:12.—G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 32. Mat 12:14-37.—Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. ii., p. 205. Mat 12:15.—Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 128. Mat 12:15-21.—S. Cox, Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 16. Mat 12:18-21.—J. Budgen, Parochial Sermons, vol. ii., p. 65. Mat 12:19-21. -Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xix., No. 1147; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 46. Mat 12:20.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. i., No. 6; Ibid., Evening by Evening, p. 202; G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 154.

Mat 12:21

Observe:—

I. What is involved in the significant phrase, "His name." There may be very much or very little in a name taken merely as a sign for personal identification. But if any more than this be attempted, and if it be given as descriptive of certain predispositions to nature, and of certain virtues of mind and manners, it may contain far too much or too little. There is nothing more appropriate than a great name for a great man, or a good name for a good man; but the little is sorrowfully encumbered when he has to bear a name made conspicuous by virtue or by genius. Great care was taken in the naming of the Christ. The name was to be descriptive, and to be expressive of that which was to be the great function of His coming. It was to be suggestive not only of greatness, but of that greatness which was to be peculiarly and eternally His own. "Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins." The great radical idea of operative Christianity is salvation; it is only as this is being realized that its other aspects are of value to man. The name of Jesus was to symbolize the whole of morality in the sum and symmetry of a perfect combination.

II. What is involved in the trust which the Gentiles were to repose in it. The nations were to trust Him, not as some today are disposed to do, as a beneficial force amidst the powers which make for civilization. That He had been and is this no honest thinker can, we imagine, well doubt. But the Gentiles were to trust Him as that which He assumed Himself to be, and for that which He had done, and for the more He claimed the ability of doing. They must trust Christ for far more than they can understand or have the power to conceive, and trust that all things are in arrangement to "work together for good." To have this trust in Him, the nations must be convinced of the fulness not only of His manhood, but of the perfectness and all-comprehensiveness of His knowledge of all that is above man. It is when man has discovered that he can know no more of God than is revealed in Christ that he is justified in seeking only for godliness after Christ. If He be believed when He says, "Whosoever hath seen Me hath seen the Father," man has no higher wisdom to expect; it suffices him, and he trusts.

J. O. Davies, Sunrise on the Soul, p. 257.

References: Mat 12:22.—T. Evans, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iii., Mat 12:22-30.—Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 284; T. Birkett Dover, The Ministry of Mercy, p. 102. Mat 12:28.—New Outlines on the New Testament, p. 10. Mat 12:30.—H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Sunday Sermonettes for a Year, p. 190; J. C. Hare, Sermons in Herstmonceux Church, vol. ii., p. 225.

Mat 12:31

I. First, it may be said what the unpardonable sin is not. It cannot be any sin from which men ever have repented; for wherever God has given repentance He has given pardon; no sin, therefore, which has ever been repented of is the unpardonable sin. And yet what very awful and exceeding sins have been pardoned or might have been pardoned. No course even of sin, no act of deadly sin, following even upon a course of sin, if it admits the pang of penitence, shuts out from pardon. What is really dead feels not. No past sin hinders from penitence. The faintest longing to love is love; the very dread to miss for ever the face of God is love; the very terror at that dreadful state where none can love is love.

II. And now to approach the sacred text itself. And here, because Satan would ever tempt to despair of God’s mercy those whom he has tempted, through presuming upon it, to sin, our good Lord accompanies the awful sentence on that one sin which hath no forgiveness with the largest, almost boundless, assurance of mercy on all besides. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was not one sort of guilt, but many in one. It was the guilt of those who had the very presence of their Lord, who witnessed His love and holiness, who saw the power of God, but out of envy and malice obstinately resisted the light, and ascribed that which was the very working of the Spirit of Holiness to the unclean spirit. And this sin was in its very nature unpardonable, not because God would not pardon it upon repentance, but because it cut off repentance from itself, turning into sin the very miracles of mercy which should have drawn it to repentance.

III. For us is this fearful picture of completed disease given, that we may shun the very slightest taint and touch of its infecting breath. Let us labour, through God’s grace, to grow in all other graces which are opposed to every trace and shade of deadly sin; let us pray for deeper awe, for truer penitence, for loving fear, for fearing love; so shall we, in the increase of our inward life, have the witness of His Spirit to us that we are not decaying unto death; so shall we, after this brief, weary struggle, enter our everlasting rest, behold the ever-living Truth, and by His all-pervading love, love Himself in Himself, and all in Him.

E. B. Pusey, Selected Occasional Sermons, p. 225.

Mat 12:31-32

The "speaking" or blaspheming against the Holy Ghost is the sign of a very rancorous and very violent dislike in the heart against Him; and it is not the word taken abstractedly, but that evil and determinate state of heart which that word proves which constitutes the "sin against the Holy Ghost."

I. We have in the Bible four separate sins against the Holy Ghost laid out in a certain order and progression. (1) First, there is the grieving of the Holy Ghost. This occurs when you allow something in your heart and life which impedes and weakens the Spirit’s inward work. (2) Next, in the downward course, comes resisting the Holy Ghost. And that is when, with great resolution, you set yourself positively to act contrary to the known and declared will and precepts of the Spirit. (3) From this it is an easy step to quench Him; when, being vexed and annoyed at influences which restrain you, or by voices which condemn you within, you endeavour to put it out, as water on fire, stifling it that it may die—overlaying the work of God within you, in order that you may escape. (4) There is a fourth stage, when the mind, through a long course of sin, proceeds to such a violent dislike and abhorrence of the Spirit of God that all infidel thoughts and horrid imaginations come into the mind. The man obstructs and withstands the kingdom of Christ everywhere; and that is the unpardonable sin.

II. The misery and horror of that state lies in this, that it is a state that cannot repent. It cannot make one move towards God. The Spirit is gone. There is no pardon now, because there can be no desire for pardon. There is and there can be in that man no gleam of spiritual thought, because the Author and Giver of it is gone for ever.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 359.

I. Observe, Christ speaks of Himself here as the Son of man, the Son of God in a disguise, as it were; God under the veil of human flesh. Can we wonder that He should look with a merciful and forgiving eye upon any of His brethren who, not suspecting His greatness, should rudely jostle against Him in the crowd? Suppose, for instance, a king were to assume for purposes of state the disguise of a subject, and to mingle with the simplest and rudest of his people, and suppose that while in such disguise he were to meet with an insult; would not a broad line of demarcation be drawn between an insult so offered and an act of avowed treason against the king upon his throne? A comparison of this kind will be of considerable help to us in understanding our subject. Even the murderers of Christ sinned against the Son of man, against Christ in His human nature; whereas, had they known who it was whom they crucified, many might possibly have been overwhelmed with shame and have besought His forgiveness.

II. But in the case of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost no such plea can be set up. Here we have a sin not against God in the guise of Jesus the son of Joseph the carpenter, but against God in His essential Deity, God upon the throne of heaven, God who does good and is the Author of all good both in heaven and earth. The sin of the Jews which our Lord rebuked partook of this character; for they had said that He was under the influence of, and in league with, an unclean spirit; to do good, to love mercy, and to perform acts which undeniably tended to overturn the kingdom of Satan and establish the kingdom of God—this, they said, was the work of the devil. Now unquestionably this was to put darkness for light and light for darkness, to confound all distinctions between good and evil, to confuse the works of Satan and those of the Most High God, as though they were not the exact opposites of each other. The person who does fully commit this sin places himself exactly in the position of the lost angels; the sin of Satan is that of deliberately worshipping evil and hating good, and on this account is unpardonable sin—unpardonable for this reason, if for no other, that it cannot be repented of.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 3rd series, p. 350.

References: Mat 12:31, Mat 12:32.—P. J. Gloag, Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 206; H. W. Beecher, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 352; S. Cox, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iii., p. 321; R. Scott, University Sermons, p. 64; J. C. Hare, The Victory of Faith, p. 288.

Mat 12:33

I. It is possible to ascertain our true state and character. What plainer evidence of this could be desired than these words, "The tree is known by his fruit"? As certainly as the tree is known by his fruit may we know our spiritual state and character if we will only be honest, nor act like the merchant who, suspecting his affairs to be verging on brankruptcy, shuts his eyes to the danger, takes no stock, and strikes no balance.

II. Our religious profession is not always a test of our state. (1) It may be a test in certain circumstances. Though it does not prove the possession of religion in the time of peace, show me a man, like the house standing its ground against the sweep of floods, or the soldier following his colours into the thick of battle, who holds fast the profession of his faith in the face of obloquy, of persecution, of death itself, and there is little room to doubt that his piety is genuine—that he has the root of the matter in him. (2) The profession of religion is not a test of the reality of religion in our times. The tide has turned, and those who now make a profession of zealous and active piety find themselves no longer opposed to the stream and spirit of the age. This is a subject of gratitude. Yet it suggests caution in judging of ourselves, and warns us to take care, since a profession of religion is rather fashionable than otherwise, that in making it we are not the creatures of fashion, but new creatures in Jesus Christ.

III. The true evidence of our state is to be found in our heart and habits. The tree is known by his fruits—by their fruits ye shall know them.

T. Guthrie, Sneaking to the Heart, p. 163.

References: Mat 12:34.—J. Ker, Sermons, p. 121. Mat 12:35.—S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 177; E. White, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 74.

Mat 12:36-37

Idle words may, in a very general way, be defined as words that issue out of a condition of idleness—fruitless, useless hours. The care of speech is eminently a fit training which the Gospel ordains.

I. There are a great many words that are like dust-cloths. They remove grime; they drive away unpleasant thought and feeling; they change the temperament. There are a great many things in conversation that tend to make men cheerful, that tend to put springs under the waggon of life to make it go easier along in the rough road. All these things are edifying in their own way. They polish, they brighten, they comfort, they cheer; they keep people above melancholy and gloom, and that itself is very desirable.

II. One kind of idle words is tattling. It is a kind of gay frivolity upon a line of things which require sobriety and charity. It proceeds neither from wit nor from humour, nor from rectitude; but it is amusing ourselves with the thousand little scraps that relate to men and their affairs. Not only is it of no benefit to them, but it is bad for us and bad for them.

III. Boasting is another form of idle speech. There is a vast amount of it which springs up in youth and does not die out in manhood. It is a sort of bidding one’s self up in the market. It indicates the want of any high self-measuring, and is very foolish and idle.

IV. Profane swearing is an utterance of sacred names or of sacred things in a light, trifling, and, worse still, in a malicious and angry mood. Swearing is some men’s idea of boldness. But God forbid that any man who values aught that is noble and sweet and pure in men, in angels, and in God should indulge in this most demoralizing habit! There is the best reason in the world, in philosophy, in politeness, in neighbourly charity, why one’s mouth should be kept free and clean from all profanity. It is the violation of decency and honour; it is the violation of every noble instinct.

H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 268.

References: Mat 12:36.—F. W. Farrar, In the Days of Thy Youth, p. 30, Mat 12:36, Mat 12:37.—C. Girdlestone, A Course of Sermons, vol. i., p. 19.

Mat 12:37

Consider some of the ways by which words are used that minister to our condemnation.

I. At the head of this list we must put profane swearing.

II. Another way in which we expose ourselves to God’s displeasure is by what St. Paul calls "foolish talking."

III. Another example of the improper use of the gift of speech is an indulgence in the petulant and complaining language which so often destroys the harmony of private life.

IV. A fourth illustration of our text is found in the case of misrepresentation and slander.

V. Angry words are another description of words by which we may endanger our everlasting salvation.

J. N. Norton, Old Paths, p. 144.

Mat 12:38

In every age, and perhaps more as the world grows older, men’s hearts are apt to utter the same wish. The mind, afloat, as it were, on a vast sea, needs, and with reason, a sure anchor. Man cannot tell us of what man has never seen. We crave for the very heaven itself to be opened; we crave to see the light in which God dwells; we crave to hear the voice of Him to whom all things are known, who can neither be deceived nor deceive.

I. This feeling is in its own nature nothing blamable. All belief is not deserving of the name of faith, and it is greatly against the wisdom of God to confound them. If God were to give us no answer at all when we ask for a sign from heaven, no man could be blamed for remaining in uncertainty; on the contrary, to believe a thing merely because we do not like the feeling of ignorance about it is no better than folly. Or again, it might have been possible that God should have given us the very exact answer we desired. But neither of these is our actual case; we are not left in utter ignorance, nor raised to perfect knowledge. There is a state between these two, and that is properly the state of faith. There is no place for faith in entire ignorance; for to believe then were mere idle guessing; it would not be faith, but folly. Nor, again, is there any place for faith in perfect knowledge; for knowledge is something more than believing. The place for faith is between both.

II. That Christ died and rose from the dead is the great work which God has wrought for our satisfaction; it is not absolutely the only sign which He has ever given—far from it; but it is the greatest, and goes most directly to that question which we most long to have answered. It assures us of God that He loves us, and will love us for ever. To those who think upon it fully it does become the real sign from heaven which was required; for it brought God into the world, and the world near to God. He who has the evidence of the Spirit not only believes that Christ rose and was seen of Peter and of the other apostles; Christ has manifested Himself to him also; he knows in whom he has believed. The heaven is opened, and the angels of God are every hour ascending and descending on that son of man who, through a living faith in Christ, has been adopted through Him to be a son of God.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. v., p. 7.

Mat 12:38-43

Truth through and by life.

Consider in what respects Christ was greater than Solomon.

I. The Proverbs could not well be spared from the Bible nor dropped out of the life of the world. They are of highest use, and ought to be read and re-read, for their wisdom, their broad interpretation of life, and their ethical value. If they were heeded and obeyed they would bring the individual, the family, the community, the nation into a state of ideal perfection. Their lack is that they have no power to turn into living moulding energy. They simply state truth and prescribe conduct. They are impersonal, and have no living force to drive them home. Truth must be incarnated in a just representative in order to be powerful. This is the weakness of the Proverbs viewed as effective agents; they are without incarnation. The truth taught by Solomon went out naked into the world, and weighted by his failure to realize it in himself.

II. Turn now to Christ. We can match nearly every precept of Christ with a like one from Solomon. Why does it not appeal to us with equal force? (1) Christ had a single, solid background for His truth—God the Father; while Solomon spoke from an observation of human life, or rather of the world as it goes. Hence Christ’s truth wore an eternal character, and was as the voice of God Himself; it was absolute; it came from above, and was not picked up here and there. (2) There is also a wide unlikeness in the tone of their teachings, especially if the Book of Ecclesiastes be referred to Solomon. This book stands in the Bible rather as a warning than a guide, telling us how not to think of life. Life is a puzzle; time and chance have sway. Christ’s teachings are the contrast to this. Life is no puzzle to Him; it presents no question. Everywhere and always there is one clear, unvarying note sounding an eternal destruction between good and evil, declaring life to be good and a path to blessedness. (3) There is another contrast between these two teachers: one made but small personal indication of his teaching, while the other brought His life into ideal harmony with all that He taught. The lesson is beyond expression practical. We know no truth except by action. We can teach no vital truth except through the life. We cannot attain to the eternal joy except as we walk step by step in that path of actual duty and performance in which He walked, who so gained its fulness and sat down at the right hand of the Father.

T. T. Munger, The Appeal to Life, p. 47.

Reference: Mat 12:38-50.—Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. ii., p. 215.

Mat 12:39-40

Jonah being spoken of in the text as a type of Christ, let us consider that part of his history which is typical. It is contained in the first and second chapters, and presents us with the following pictures:—

I. Man shunning God’s presence. Like those mariners who, leaving the sacred soil which was the place of God’s sanctuary and the scene of God’s revelations, launched forth upon the waste salt billows and made for the great heathen mart of Tarshish, so went man forth from his primitive condition of holy bliss, to seek diversion from the thoughts of God and judgment, to seek entertainment for a few short hours in the traffic and merchandise of the world.

II. God’s awful wrath in consequence of man’s departure from Him. The raging tempest, which well-nigh broke the ship wherein Jonah was embarked, supplies us with a just emblem of the wrath of God. By nature we live and move in the element of that wrath. Every man who has not by a personal appropriating faith laid hold of the hope set before him in the Gospel is at this moment in imminent peril.

III. The vain attempts made by man to propitiate an offended God. The great majority of men instinctively seek to have something which may serve them to fall back upon in the hour of affliction and distress. Acknowledging by a certain natural instinct that there is a God, and that they have offended Him, men will do everything but that which is required of them to make their peace with Him and obtain His favour. But then sacrifices, the mere dictates of natural religion, cannot avail to turn away the wrath of God.

IV. The Divine method of propitiation by the death of Christ. Jonah’s being taken up and cast into the sea is a figurative representation of Christ’s being made over, as our Substitute, to the fury of God’s indignation.

V. The last point shadowed forth in Jonah’s history is the triumph of Christ over death and hell—meaning by that latter term the place of departed spirits. Jonah, being swallowed by the fish, was miraculously preserved alive within it, and was afterwards delivered from his marvellous hiding-place and laid upon the dry land in safety. Christ rose again the third day from the dead, in a body identical indeed with that which hung upon the cross, but spiritual, eternal, heavenly, adapted to a new and imperishable condition of existence.

E. M. Goulburn, Sermons in Holywell, p. 23.

References: Mat 12:40.—J. N. Norton, Golden Truths, p. 165. Mat 12:41.—Ibid., Old Paths, p. 487; W. M. Punshon, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 19. Mat 12:42.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ix., No. 533; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 209; Parker, Cavendish Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 257; J. Hamilton, The Royal Preacher, p. 31. Mat 12:43.—G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 132. xii. 43-45.—T. R. Evans, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 88; H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1,648.

Mat 12:45

Growing Worse.

I. It must be remembered that we all begin with certain faults—different persons with different faults. What we mean by a man’s character getting worse is that these faults in us strengthen and increase. But is it an unaccountable and strange process, that by which faults grow? By no means. It is the simplest process in the world; it is simply by repeating a faulty action or humour time after time. We have only to go on in the same way, and, at the end of the time, we have a worse fault; for that is the nature of habit, that it grows by mere repetition of the same conduct and becomes a stronger habit. But if the sinful habit is stronger, then the man is a worse man.

II. People often go on getting worse and worse, letting sin grow, but thinking it all the time quite impossible that they should be worse. That idea which they started with they never give up—the idea that they never can alter for the bad. All alteration, they think, must be for the better; if they have not improved, then they are the same they always were; but worse they cannot be. It is this deep ingrained assumption in men’s minds which blinds them to the most startling facts about themselves. They are now absorbed in covetous passions and worldly aims; they have fierce desires to get this and that earthly prize; they sacrifice honesty; they do the meanest acts; they are guilty of constant pieces of deception in order to win them. There was a day when they would have shrunk from this; now they do it all as a matter of course; but still they have no idea that they are at all worse than they were. It is always circumstances that change, never themselves. But Scripture everywhere says plainly that men do grow worse in this life, and that they grow worse out of themselves; and therefore it is that they reap the wages of death, because it is their own sin. Let us look to ourselves, to our own hearts, and watch and correct evil at its fount; for there is the fount of it.

J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 118.

References: Mat 12:45.—B. F. Westcott, Expositor, 3rd series, vol. vi., p. 83; J. Keble, Sermons from Lent to Passiontide, p. 203.

Mat 12:46-50

Jesus and His Brethren.

Consider:—

I. the brethren of the boyhood of Jesus. Christ was born into the home and was to live in a brotherhood, with no opportunity for exclusiveness permitted Him. He acted and was acted upon by the brotherhood of the home and the neighbourhood. That He passed stainlessly at length into His manhood, ought to go for something as a declaration of the mysterious virtue that He was. Having been made like unto His brethren, and lived sinlessly under the conditions of human brotherhood, He is able to succour the brotherhood, and the brotherhood is able to have faith to receive the succour.

II. The brethren of the manhood of Jesus. "He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, Behold, My mother and My brethren." The idea we have of brotherhood to begin with must suffer in the losses of our after experiences, and participate in the benefits of our highest gains. If the sanctities of childhood be lost with the purities of mankind unattained, our conception of brotherhood may be modified to the extent even of losing its central and essential idea. The impure selfish man has no brother if he continues long enough in his impurity, but only a confederate in his sin. On the other hand, if man turn the negative of his childhood into the positive of his manhood, and arise by persistent endeavour and trust in God from innocence into virtue, there will be a correspondent elevation and expansion of his sense of brotherhood. Man is then his brother, not because he is of his kin, but of his kind; not because he is of his nation, but of his nature. Men are called into the brotherhood of Christ’s manhood, not because of what they have and are in themselves, but because of that which they can be made to see to be for them in God; they know themselves in Him, and find each other in the light of His countenance, and in the light of God there is but little difference between man and man. We can all be very near to the Christ, for we can all serve if we cannot command. The brotherhood is broad, and such as fitted the God-man to have formed.

J. O. Davies, Sunrise on the Soul, p. 281.

References: Mat 12:46-50.—G. Macdonald, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 5. Mat 12:48-50.—W. Arthur, Ibid., vol. xvi., p. 201; H. W. Beecher, Sermons, 1st series, p. 284. Mat 12:49, Mat 12:50.—W. H. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 474.

Mat 12:50

We have here two things—a character and a blessing.

I. "Whosoever shall do the will of God." So, then, God has a will. This thought, familiar as it is to us, was a thought to which man by searching could not attain. God is no mere personification or idealization of accident or destiny. God is no mechanical setter in motion or preserver in motion of the wheel of nature or the world of being. (1) God has a will concerning our condition. The will of God is that we should become a new creation by means of the work of the Holy Ghost. It is the will of God that our condition may be changed, so that they who before fulfilled the desires of the flesh and of the mind should become altogether holy, which is, being interpreted, altogether His. (2) God has a will concerning our conduct. I know not that anything more wonderfully expresses God’s love for us than this thought: God cares how I act. "It is the will of God that ye stand perfect and complete." Can any lot be abject, can any life be trivial, can any day or hour be without its glory, if the eye of God is upon it, and if the mind of God is exercised upon its being this or that? (3) God has a will concerning our destiny. The words are His own. He will have all men to be saved. He would have you for one of those vessels of mercy which He hath before prepared unto glory.

II. Consider, next, the blessing. "The same is My brother and sister and mother." There is a higher than any natural relationship into which he enters who has drunk Christ’s Spirit. He that doeth the will of God is Christ’s brother. Not connected with Him by home or parentage, he shall have a dearer and a closer tie still; he shall have the same spirit; he shall be nearer to Him for ever than the dearest son of His mother could have been to Him for one moment below; he shall have Christ to dwell in his heart by faith, and he who so dwells shall be not more his God than his brother. Miss not that dignity, that glory, for any other; for anything that is of the earth earthy. Whatever else thou hast or hast not, yet miss not this; for it is a tie which nothing can sever, it is a crown of beauty which can never fade away.

C. J. Vaughan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 177.

References: Mat 12:50.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 235; J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 347; R. Heber, Parish Sermons, vol. ii., p. 410.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 14

JESUS RETURNS TO GALILEE

Mat 12:1-18; Mar 2:23-28, and Luk 6:1-5. We find that our Lord spent but two weeks at Jerusalem during this tour, preaching and working miracles all the time, of which we have no record; but the fifth chapter of John giving us one notable miracle and one powerful sermon. Luke informs us that the incident, here recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, took place on the Sabbath following the Passover, which began on the Sabbath, ran through the intervening week, and closed on the ensuing Sabbath; thus, according to Luke’s testimony, giving our Savior two-weeks’ evangelistic tour in Jerusalem. Inquiry naturally rises why He returns to Galilee so soon, when He had spent about ten months of the preceding year in that country. Our Lord gives the reason (Joh 4:44). Jerusalem and Judea were the regions of great population, while Galilee was the more thinly settled. Again, as He was a native Galilean, His ministry would not attract the amount of popular attention there as at Jerusalem, and especially on occasions of the great festivals, thus augmenting the probability of their cutting short His ministry by crowning Him King. Therefore He did most of His preaching and performed most of His mighty works in the comparatively thinly populated regions of Galilee.

Mark: “And it came to pass that He was journeying on the Sabbath, through the corn-fields, and His disciples began to pursue the journey, plucking the ears [i.e., the wheat-heads]. And the Pharisees continued to say to Him, Behold what they are doing on the Sabbath, which is not lawful. And He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he had need, and he and those who were with him were hungry? How he entered into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and he gave it to those who were with him? And He said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Matthew: “Have you not read in the law that the priests on the Sabbath in the ’temple do profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I

say unto you, There is One here greater than the temple. If you had known what that is, I wish mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke all relate this incident, which transpired on the Sabbath following the Passover, while our Lord and His disciples were prosecuting their pedestrian journey back to Galilee. Remember that we are now in the beginning of the second year of our Savior’s ministry, two more years and two Passovers yet to come. We see our Lord’s critics raise no objection to their plucking the wheat-heads, rubbing them out in their hands and eating them (it is more probable it was barley, as this occurred about the first of May, the beginning of the barley harvest, the wheat coming on about a month later), as this privilege was granted in the law of Moses (Deu 21:2); but they arraign Him for violating the Sabbath, as this happened to take place on that day, showing how very fanatical they were, that they wouldn’t allow them to get a little something to eat on the Sabbath. Excessive zeal on non- essentials has characterized the fallen Churches of every age. At this point they murdered the martyrs, too blind to see their holy lives, and actually massacring them because they did not conform to the non-essential human regulations of a fallen ecclesiasticism. Our Savior here gives them the case of the priests, who offer the sacrifices, and work hard in the temple on the Sabbath, and are blameless. He also corroborates it by the case of David (1Sa 21:1-7), who, in his flight from Saul, came to Nob, in the days of Abiathar, the priest, he and his men, in their extremity and destitution, eating the shewbread in the temple, which was lawful only for the priests to eat. “I wish mercy and not sacrifice” is the key to this entire problem. God wants a broken heart and a contrite spirit, a penitent soul, on whom He can have mercy, free and unlimited — i.e., save him for nothing, except the vicarious work of Christ — instead of a great sacrifice, offered in pomp and demonstration by some rich person, whose heart is far from Him, vainly flattering himself that he can pay his way to heaven. In this way millions of wealthy Church members make their bed in hell, depending on their offerings to the Lord, instead of falling, a miserable, bankrupt suppliant, at the feet of Jesus, and there crying for mercy till the heavens bow, and God comes down and answers the prayer of the broken-hearted penitent in the mighty uplift of His omnipotent hand.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 4. (Mat 12:1-50.)

The Passing of Divine Long-suffering.

The fourth subdivision now closes this part with the full manifestation of the breach between the Lord and Israel. The incidents are grouped together, however, not altogether historically, but according to the usual manner in Matthew, for the purpose of illustrating clearly the great dispensational change that is beginning. The story of the corn-fields and the healing of the withered hand is brought in here from the earlier place to which it belongs chronologically, because the Sabbath was a sign of God’s covenant with the nation; and Christ being Lord of it shows how absolutely dependent upon Him their blessing was. The repetition of their awful charge of casting out demons through the prince of the demons, gives occasion to the Lord’s warning as to blasphemy against the Spirit as the unpardonable sin. While at the end of the twelfth chapter He formally refuses the claim of fleshly relationships, such as Israel’s was ("of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came,") and declares the spiritual tie between His disciples and Himself as that which replaces it, - the new principle of Christianity. In the next chapter we have the parables of the Kingdom in its present form, and the very style (the parable) shows the mass of the people as given up to hardness of heart (Mat 13:11-15). It is true that after all this the Lord presents Himself definitively to the nation; riding into Jerusalem as her King in fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy, and this brings on the closing scenes; but it is the full public confirmation which they here give, and which it was designed of God that they should be permitted to give, of a rejection which had virtually taken place before. At this, and the principle involved in it, we shall have to look, when we reach that portion of the Gospel.

1.(1) The question of the Sabbath is that which we find first raised; and Christ declares Himself the Lord of the sabbath on a double ground, that of His Person and that of His work. At this we must look more closely. The two incidents given here are found in both the other synoptic Gospels, and the question (somewhat differently answered) is found in all.

If the ten commandments were, as Scripture positively declares (Exo 34:27), God’s covenant with His people, the Sabbath as the fourth of these had evidently a peculiar place among them. It was the only commandment that was positive, not moral, - something, therefore, which, with the failure of the covenant itself, might fail and be set aside, as those which were moral could not. Covenant or no covenant, every other part of the "ten words" has its ground in the nature of God Himself, and must be as unchanging as He is. Thus, although the "rule" of Christianity is not that of the law but a higher one (Gal 6:16), yet it is none the less true that "the righteousness of the law" - the "righteous requirement" (dikaioma), that which was essentially righteous in it - "is fulfilled in us who walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom 8:4). In the sabbath, then; we find something which in its being set aside could be a "sign" of their relationship with God broken by their sin, as no other commandment could.

And the Sabbath was a "sign." "I gave them My sabbaths," says God by Ezekiel, "to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them" (Eze 20:12). For this purpose it was, in fact, every way fitted. As first given in the book of Exodus, it is a memorial of God’s rest as the Creator, when satisfied with the goodness of all His hands had made. Thus alone could He rest ever; and as a sign of God resting as satisfied, we can see at once how much the maintenance of the sabbath meant for an Israelite, - how fiercely the Pharisee would resent the thought of its being set aside. In Deuteronomy (Deu 5:15) they are commanded to keep it as a people redeemed from Egyptian bondage; and here also the loss of it would be most serious. As the sign of a people set apart to God they had often submitted to all kinds of injury rather than themselves violate it.

With their multiplied guards against infringement - the hedge round the law - the disciples rubbing the ears of corn between the hands could be thought of as a work: the gathering for personal use, if hungry, was permitted. The Pharisees boldly appeal to Him about the conduct of His disciples in doing what was not lawful to do upon the sabbath; not unlawful in itself, or at other times, but as a violation of the day of rest. The Lord replies, justifying them against the charge, but not at all in the way we should expect Him to have done. He does not attack their human additions to the divine Word, nor their fine spun interpretations of it: He takes higher and stronger ground, exposing the whole condition of the people as before God, and through their unbelief in Him, who was Lord of the sabbath, and with whose rejection the sabbath could no longer be with them at all.

David was ahungered, and those that were with him: did they remember how he entered into the house of God, and ate the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests? This was not a doubtful point, not a question of human additions to the law or interpretations of it, but a direct opposition to the Levitical statute. But how, then, could the Lord justify this? Was it on the ground of hunger, merely? and were they so far from possibility of help as to justify the setting aside of the law in their case? and was every hungry man entitled with David here to set it aside?

The answer must be surely sought elsewhere: David, who took the show-bread, was in fact the anointed King of Israel, Saul having been rejected of God for his disobedience to the divine commands. Yet David was now fleeing, a well-nigh solitary man; from the causeless wrath of Saul. Moreover upon,the King all Israel’s relation to God now depended. The priesthood had utterly failed; the ark was in practical banishment all the days of Saul (1Ch 13:3). And, according to the prophetic word of the man of God to Eli, even the " faithful priest," raised up of God, was to "walk before" His "anointed" king "continually." (1Sa 2:35-36, and contrast Num 27:21.) Thus David brings the ark to Zion, and assumes afterwards the ordering of the service in connection with it.

David, then, being in rejection, the whole relationship of God with Israel had suffered eclipse, and the sanctity of the consecrated things was departed from them: and this is, no doubt, the meaning of his words to the high-priest upon the occasion referred to: "and the bread is, as it were, common; though it were sanctified this day in the vessel." All was, for the moment, in abeyance in Israel, and that because of the rejection of the anointed of Jehovah. How much more surely, then, when the antitypical David was in their midst, only to be rejected, was it the uttermost folly to contend for a sabbath! How could the sabbath remain for those who were refusing the Lord of the sabbath?*

{*See for further remarks, and especially the relation of the show-bread to a rejected Christ and to Christianity, 1Sa 21:1-15 notes.}

The Lord cites from the law itself another witness. The priestly service of sacrifice did not cease upon the sabbath: the morning and evening sacrifices were even increased (Num 28:9-10). Here man’s sin was the cause, but the grace of God also that provided for the sin. This whole typical sacrificial system, much older than the law, and dating really from the gate of Eden; though incorporated with the legal system when this was established, was the constant, though veiled, witness of the grace running through all previous dispensations. Before it, wherever there was conflict, the "sign" of the legal covenant gave way, as here. Thus, even now, Israel’s sin, and yet also the incoming grace of God along with it, were setting aside the legal covenant. "The temple" thus insisted on this violation of the Sabbath, for the glory of Him whose abode it was, and in the interests of those who could only in such a manner be maintained in relation to Him. But here was what was greater than the temple as much as the antitype was greater than the type: temple and sacrifice, the glory of God and the blessing of man, were all represented there in Him, as never before had been. No doubt, they were ignorant of it: alas, they were ignorant of plainer things, in which the character of God whom they professed to serve declared itself. He had said: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice," but with them sacrifice (in the mere external way) overshadowed mercy. God was a God of requirement rather than of bounteous giving. Had they known Him as such, they would not have condemned the guiltless.

For the truth was here, the seal of all that He was saying, that "the Son of man was Lord of the Sabbath," - the One, therefore, who had in His hand the whole adjudgment of their case; which in law, too, had gone so entirely against them. The Giver of divine rest was, indeed, among them: as that, we have just heard him proclaim Himself; for no rest could there be for man; except at the same time God could rest also. In Christ He has declared His delight; on Him the Spirit of God, dove-like, rests; He is the "Father of eternity," the One who brings about the eternal rest of God, and who, by His work, brings sinners to partake of it. But thus also, if He be rejected, Sabbath there can be none, and for ever none.

The claim of His work is more distinctly affirmed in His healing the withered hand in the synagogue afterwards. Here He does work Himself, and in answer to their challenge. With distinct purpose to accuse Him, they ask, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" to which He answers by another question: would they not lift a sheep of theirs out of a pit upon the sabbath? and was not a man more than a sheep? Then; having silenced them with His word, He silences them with His deed: divine power heals the man before their eyes. Who shall stay God’s love from going forth? and yet they but respond to this with more determined hatred.

(2) We now, for the first time, hear of a council held to put Jesus to death. Aware of it, He withdraws Himself, but cannot withdraw from the need which continually appeals to Him. Still the stream of mercy flows; but He charges them strictly not to make Him known: He accepts rejection, will not gather the multitudes after Him by the fame of His abundant miracles, nor raise up any against His enemies. There was plenty of material to work upon; plenty of readiness, as we know, to follow a leader of such a kind as had arisen and still would rise; but He was upon a different path and with a different purpose from any of theirs. The Spirit of God quotes from Esaias to show this. The Son-Servant (ho pais) of God, His Chosen; His Beloved, in whom His soul delights, - terms by which He is characterized in answer to the enmity and reproach which manifest themselves upon man’s part, - characterized, too, by the Spirit that abides upon Him, in the fulness of that Spirit He is going to show judgment to the nations. Judgment is here the absolute right of things. Quietness, patience and gentleness characterize Him: "He shall not strive, nor cry, nor cause His voice to be heard in the streets. A bruised reed" - the perfect symbol of weakness surely - "will He not break, and smoking flax will He not quench, until He send forth judgment unto victory. And in His name shall the nations trust."

The application here is perfectly evident. Rejected of Israel, He is turning to the Gentiles, and we think, and are intended to think, of the present grace going out to the Gentiles during the Christian dispensation. But such a Gentile dispensation is never contemplated in the Old Testament prophets: it is a gap of time in the working out of God’s purposes as to Israel, which in this way foreshortens their perspective, and brings the first and second comings of the Lord between which it lies, into a closeness of connection which is confusing enough to those who are not aware of this.* Isaiah in the passage quoted does not, in fact, speak of such a dispensation. He begins with the character of the Lord’s ministry in Israel as Matthew here exhibits it, and then contrasts with this His showing judgment to the nations, and the final blessing which will flow out to them, in words which are quite capable of taking in the present time; and Matthew uses it in this way. There is no statement of any change of dispensation; as is clear; none the less it snits well with what is now taking place, - the shadow of the cross now beginning to fall across the path of One who meek and lowly of heart, and knowing what is before Him, accepts rejection and this uttermost sorrow with it, finding His joy meanwhile in such service of love as grace had brought Him down to, His precious compensation for the cross itself.

{*The principle itself is clearly stated, Mat 13:11; Mat 13:35; Rom 16:25-26; Eph 3:6; Eph 3:9-10; Col 1:25-27, and will be considered under these texts.}

(3) And the road still leads downwards. One possessed by a demon is brought to Him, blind and dumb and, the demon cast out, the blind and the dumb is at once restored. The multitudes, astonished, cry out, "Is this the Son of David?" and yet, as the question implies, only half convinced. The Pharisees hasten to extinguish the spark of this conviction by repeating their former blasphemy. They could not deny the power that was so manifest. They were driven then; if they did not submit and own God in it, to the awful alternative of imputing this to Satan. To Himself, it would seem, they dared not do this. The Lord read it in their hearts, however, and answered it. If Satan could cast out Satan; as they supposed, his kingdom would be divided against itself, and such a divided kingdom could not stand. Division there might be, no doubt, and discord in many respects, and in fact evil is in this way ever discordant, as truth and goodness are the only perfect unity. But with these healed demoniacs, it was not insinuated even that merely one form of evil had contended with another, - one had given place to another. Nay, the power of Satan; they confessed, was broken and gone: Satan was really cast out. Satan. then, had not done this. To say so would be but to confound good with evil, and lose the power of discernment altogether.

Moreover their sons professedly cast out demons. How was it, then; if they admitted, as they did admit, this? Was it an opposite power that worked in the same way? or how did they distinguish? These, then; would be their judges.

If, on the other hand, it had to be admitted that this was the work of the Spirit of God, the kingdom of God had come upon them unawares. The expression here suggests the idea of surprise: here it was, not indeed as established outwardly, but in the power which belonged to it, and that as manifested in the King Himself. Yet they were not prepared for it and did not recognize it, When before their eyes! Who, then, could enter into a strong man’s house, and seize upon his goods, if he did not first bind the strong man? Strong enough Satan had shown himself in the case of these poor demoniacs; yet his power had been vanquished, the enemy bound. And by whom?

It had come, then, to this: there must now be an open decision; neutrality could not be permitted. "He that is not with Me is against Me; he that gathereth not with Me scattereth." Mercy could no longer be shown where the power of the Spirit of God had, as power, to be owned, and yet attributed to Satan himself: This blasphemy was no longer ignorant unbelief: it was open-eyed opposition to God and to all that was of God. A word spoken against the Son of man might be forgiven; the lowly place that He had taken - though it were but fullest grace and to meet the need of man - might yet hide His glory from the eyes of carnal men; but here was what had to be owned, could not be hidden: open-eyed hatred could not be forgiven; could never be. They expected fuller mercy in the age to come - in Messiah’s day - than in the present age of law: but this could never be forgiven; in this age nor in that to come.

(4) That generation had proved its condition; the tree was known by its fruit. It was a viper’s brood, from which no good thing could be expected any longer. Their mouth was speaking now out of the fulness of the heart. The treasures of the good man were good things, but the treasures of the evil, evil. Thus an idle word might prove a man’s condition, and in the day of judgment all such would be taken into account, - by his words a man be justified or condemned. How impossible, then, for any to escape, who has not found his shelter in Him whom Israel here refuses!

(5) The end, then; had been reached morally. It was no use asking now for signs. An evil and adulterous generation could not be helped by signs. One they should have, the sign of the prophet Jonah. Jonah, three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, had been a sign to the Ninevites, and thus the preaching of a man; as it were risen from the dead, had brought that great city to repentance. Well, the Son of man would be really in the grave three days and nights, rejected and cast out, but at His preaching by His resurrection they, more hardened than Nineveh, would not repent. The Ninevites would rise up in the judgment to condemn them; so much the more as the Son of man was greater than Jonah. The queen of the south also, would rise up in the judgment against them, who came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon: and here was One how much greater!

(6) The Lord goes on to predict the end of this reformed and law-boasting generation; which rejected Him. They were cleansed from idolatry indeed, but it was but as when the unclean spirit had gone out of a man; not cast out, but of its own will. Swept and adorned its house might be, but, empty, it only invited the return of its former occupant. The occupant would return: idolatry will again take possession of Israel in the latter days, and with seven other spirits worse than this: and they will enter in and dwell there. The last state of that generation* will be worse than the first. We shall see later on in the Gospel (Mat 24:1-51) to what the Lord refers.

{*"Generation" in Scripture is often used with a moral application rather than in a time sense, - for a succession of people with the same moral characteristics, see Psa 12:7. This is, no doubt, the sense here.}

(7) All this is closed, on the Lord’s part, with a significant word. While still speaking to the people, He is told by one of the bystanders that His mother and His brethren stand without, desiring to speak with Him. The cry had been raised, as we learn from Mark (3: 21), even among His "friends," that He was beside Himself; and this attempt speak with Him on the part of His relatives no doubt was a consequence of this. The opposition had grown so great, that alarm for His personal safety may have actuated them, and the desire to induce Him to take in some respects a different course. But if such were their thought Matthew gives no hint of it; and the omission is significant. The Lord’s words are not to be taken as if they referred merely to any conduct of this kind, as far as this Gospel is concerned. They are to be taken rather in connection with what has gone before and what follows here; that is, as referring to the dispensational change beginning. Judaism was essentially a national religion: men were "Jews by Nature," as the apostle says, although of course, proselytes were admitted. Christians are such by new nature only: the spiritual tie is the whole thing. And that is what the Lord here affirms: He answered an said to him that spake to Him, Who is My mother? and who are My brethren? And, stretching out His hand over His disciples, He said, Behold My mother and My brethren: for whosoever shall do the will of My Father who is in heaven; he is My brother, and sister, and mother."

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12:1-14 Matthew places Jesus’ offer of rest (11:28-30) in close connection with a discussion of the Sabbath. Jesus’ rest liberates people from human traditions concerning the Sabbath (cp. Heb 4:1-11). The Pharisees rejected Jesus because of their commitment to tradition.

12:1-8 This exchange highlights the Pharisees’ lack of compassion as they imposed a burdensome yoke (11:29-30).

12:1 The Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, was to be a day of complete rest according to Old Testament laws (Gen 2:2-3; Exod 20:8-11). The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ (cp. Heb 4:1-11).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 12:1. Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῲ καιρῷ, at that time) The Pharisees interrupted Him even at that most unseasonable[548] time.—ἤρξαντο τίλλειν, began to pluck) The Pharisees interrupted Him immediately. It required some labour to shake out a sufficient number of grains from the ears to appease their hunger.

[548] “Alienissimo,” i.e. most foreign to the subject.—(I. B.)

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_12:1 ff. Comp. Mar_2:23 ff.; Luk_6:1 ff. Any one was allowed to pluck (τίλλειν, Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 214) ears of corn in another mans field till he was satisfied. Deu_23:25. It is customary and allowable even, at the present day. Robinson, II. p. 419. But according to Exo_16:22 ff., it might seem as if it were unlawful on the Sabbath, and it appears from tradition (Schabb. c. 8; Lightfoot and Schoettgen on this passage) that it was actually so regarded. That the disciples did not hold themselves bound by this view, is an evidence of their more liberal spirit. Comp. Weizsäcker, p. 390.

ἤρξαντο] After this plucking had begun, there came the remonstrance on the part of the Pharisees, Mat_12:2.

Luke, in accordance with the historical arrangement which he observes, places this incident somewhat earlier; Mark and Luke introduce it after the question about fasting. Both of them, however, mention only the first of the two proof-texts quoted by Jesus. Matthew, following a tradition that is more original as far as this matter is concerned, supplements the account in Mark, from whom, however, he essentially differs in regard to the object in plucking the corn (see on Mark, and Holtzmann, p. 73).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:1-8 . Plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath (Mar 2:23-28 ; Luk 6:1-5 ). Sabbath observance was one of the leading causes of conflict between Jesus and the guardians of religion and morality. This is the first of several encounters reported by the evangelist. According to Weiss he follows Mark, but with sayings taken directly from the Apostolic Source.

Mat 12:1-2 . σάββασιν : dative plural, as if from σάββατ - ος , other cases (genitive, singular and plural, dative, singular, accusative, plural) are formed from σάββατον ( vide Mat 12:2 ). διὰ τῶν σπορίμων might mean through fields adapted for growing grain, but the context requires fields actually sown; fields of corn. ἐπείνασαν : for the form vide Mat 4:2 . This word supplies the motive for the action, which Mark leaves vague. ἤρξαντο : perhaps emphasis should be laid on this word. No sooner had they begun to pluck ears than fault was found. Pharisees on the outlook for offences. So Carr, Camb. G. T.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12:1-8.] The disciples pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath. Our Lord’s answer to the Pharisees thereon. Mar 2:23-28. Luk 6:1-5. In Mark and Luke this incident occurs after the discourse on fasting related Mat 9:14 sq.; but in the former without any definite mark of time: St. Mark has ἐγένετο παραπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν κ.τ.λ.: St. Luke ἐγέν. δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ [δευτεροπρώτῳ] κ.τ.λ., on which see note there. The expression ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ is, I conceive, a more definite mark of connexion than we find in the other Gospels, but cannot here be fixed to the meaning which it clearly has in ch. 11:25, where the context determines it. We can merely say that it seems to have occurred about the same time as the last thing mentioned—in the same journey or season.

The plucking the ears was allowed Deu 23:25, but in the Talmud expressly forbidden on the Sabbath. (Lightfoot in loc.) It was also (Lev 23:14, apparently, but this is by no means certain: see note on Luke) forbidden until the sheaf of first-fruits had been presented to God, which was done on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread at the Passover. This incident, on that supposition, must have occurred between that day and the harvest. It is generally supposed to have been on the first Sabbath after the Passover. For a fuller discussion of the time and place, see note on Luke as before.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

C. (6) Hostility of the Pharisees, 12:1-45

(M) 1. At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the cornfields. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck ears of corn, and to eat.] Mk. has: “And it came to pass that He was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields; and His disciples began as they went to pluck the ears of corn.”—ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς] Mk. has καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν—διαπορεύεσθαι. The editor avoids καὶ ἐγένετο as a connecting link except in a special formula; see on 3:13. ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ occurs three times, here, 11:25, and 14:1, in this Gospel; never in Mk. or Lk. We have just had it in 11:5. Formulas have a way of appearing in close connection in this Gospel; cf. εἰς ὅλην τήν γῆν ἐκείνην, 9:26; ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ ἐκείνῃ, 9:31; the construction ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν —ἰδού, 2:1, 13, 19. παραγίνε αι Ἰωάνης, 3:1; παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς, 3:13; the construction ἀκούσας δὲ—ἀνεχώρησεν, 4:12, 18, 5:1; the construction καὶ ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ—ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ, 8:23, 28; καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν, 15:29; καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἐκεῖθεν, 15:21; the construction καὶ ἐμβὰς—διεπέρασε, 9:1, 9. Cf. Intro. lxxxvi. The editor avoids Mk.’s pleonastic διαπορεύεσθαι διά by substituting the simple verb. Cf. περιπατῶν παρά, 4:18, for Mk.’s παράγων παρά; and cf. Intro. xxv.—τοῖς σάββασι] from σάββατα, which seems to correspond to the Aramaic שׁבָּתָא, but is declined as though it were a neuter plural.—τὰ σπόριμα] = sown land or crops, seems to occur only here.—οἱ δὲ μαθηταί] for Mk.’s καὶ οἱ μαθηταί, see Introduction, p. xx. ἐπείνασν καὶ is omitted by Mk. For ἐπείνασαν, see on 4:2.—ἤρξαντο τίλλειν] Mk. has ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες. Mt. omits the ambiguous ὁδὸν ποιεῖν and substitutes after σταχύας, καὶ ἐσθίειν. Mk. specifies two actions, “making a way” and “plucking.”; Mt. has two, “plucking” and “eating”; Lk. has three, “plucking,” “rubbing with the hands,” and “eating.” The “eating” already involved in Mk.’s “plucking” is probably an explanatory addition of the later Evangelists. The “plucking” was, probably, from a Pharisaic standpoint, regarded as work on the Sabbath. “Reaping” is one of the thirty-nine kinds of work forbidden on the Sabbath in the Talmud, B. Shab. 73b; and Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., quotes Maimonides as saying: “To pluck ears is a kind of reaping.”

1-8. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in one or two striking details. Both omit ὁδὸν ποιεῖν from Mk 23, and specify the “eating.” Both have εἶπαν for ἔλεγον in Mk 24, and εἶπεν for λέγει in Mk 25. Both insert μόνους (-οις) in Mk 26, and both omit χρείαν ἔσχεν from Mk 25; ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως from Mk 26, and τὸ σάββατον—τὸ σάββατον from Mk 27. It does not, however, seemnecessary to suppose that they had a second source other than Mk. See on 8:4.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of the true sanctifying of the Sabbath, and the abrogating of it.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The Jewish teachers had corrupted many of the commandments, by interpreting them more loosely than they were intended; a mistake which Christ discovered and rectified (ch. 5) in his sermon on the mount: but concerning the fourth commandment, they had erred in the other extreme, and interpreted it too strictly. Note, it is common for men of corrupt minds, by their zeal in rituals, and the external services of religion, to think to atone for the looseness of their morals. But they are cursed who add to, as well as they who take fRom. the words of this book, Rev 22:16, Rev 22:19; Pro 30:6.

Now that which our Lord Jesus here lays down is, that the works of necessity and mercy are lawful on the sabbath day, which the Jews in many instances were taught to make a scruple of. Christ's industrious explanation of the fourth commandment, intimates its perpetual obligation to the religious observation of one day in seven, as a holy sabbath. He would not expound a law that was immediately to expire, but doubtless intended hereby to settle a point which would be of use to his church in all ages; and so it is to teach us, that our Christian sabbath, though under the direction of the fourth commandment, is not under the injunctions of the Jewish elders.

It is usual to settle the meaning of a law by judgments given upon cases that happen in fact, and in like manner is the meaning of this law settled. Here are two passages of story put together for this purpose, happening at some distance of time from each other, and of a different nature, but both answering this intention.

I. Christ, by justifying his disciples in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath-day, shows that works of necessity are lawful on that day. Now here observe,

1. What it was that the disciples did. They were following their Master one sabbath day through a corn-field; it is likely they were going to the synagogue (Mat 12:9), for it becomes not Christ's disciples to take idle walks on that day, and they were hungry; let it be no disparagement to our Master's house-keeping. But we will suppose they were so intent upon the sabbath work, that they forgot to eat bread; had spent so much time in their morning worship, that they had no time for their morning meal, but came out fasting, because they would not come late to the synagogue. Providence ordered it that they went through the corn, and there they were supplied. Note, God has many ways of bringing suitable provision to his people when they need it, and will take particular care of them when they are going to the synagogue, as of old for them that went up to Jerusalem to worship (Psa 84:6, Psa 84:7), for whose use the rain filled the pools: while we are in the way of duty, Jehovah-jireh, let God alone to provide for us. Being in the corn-fields, they began to pluck the ears of corn; the law of God allowed this (Deu 23:25), to teach people to be neighbourly, and not to insist upon property in a small matter, whereby another may be benefited. This was but slender provision for Christ and his disciples, but it was the best they had, and they were content with it. The famous Mr. Ball, of Whitmore, used to say he had two dishes of meat to his sabbath dinner, a dish of hot milk, and a dish of cold, and he had enough and enough.

2. What was the offence that the Pharisees took at this. It was but a dry breakfast, yet the Pharisees would not let them eat that in quietness. They did not quarrel with them for taking another man's corn (they were no great zealots for justice), but for doing it on the sabbath day; for plucking and rubbing the ears of corn of that day was expressly forbidden by the tradition of the elders, for this reason, because it was a kind of reaping.

Note, It is no new thing for the most harmless and innocent actions of Christ's disciples to be evil spoken of, and reflected upon as unlawful, especially by those who are zealous for their own inventions and impositions. The Pharisees complained of them to their Master for doing that which it was not lawful to do. Note, Those are no friends to Christ and his disciples, who make that to be unlawful which God has not made to be so.

3. What was Christ's answer to this cavil of the Pharisees. The disciples could say little for themselves, especially because those who quarrelled with them seemed to have the strictness of the sabbath sanctification on their side; and it is safest to err on that hand: but Christ came to free his followers, not only from the corruptions of the Pharisees, but from their unscriptural impositions, and therefore has something to say for them, and justifies what they did, though it was a transgression of the canon.

(1.) He justifies them by precedents, which were allowed to be good by the Pharisees themselves.

[1.] He urges an ancient instance of David, who in a case of necessity did that which otherwise he ought not to have done (Mat 12:3, Mat 12:4); "Have ye not read the story (Sa1 21:6) of David's eating the show-bread, which by the law was appropriated to the priest?" (Lev 24:5-9). It is most holy to Aaron and his sons; and (Exo 29:33) a stranger shall not eat of it; yet the priest gave it to David and his men; for though the exception of a case of necessity was not expressed, yet it was implied in that and all other ritual institutions. That which bore out David in eating the show-bread was not his dignity (Uzziah, that invaded the priest's office in the pride of his heart, though a king, was struck with a leprosy for it, Ch2 26:16, etc.), but his hunger. The greatest shall not have their lusts indulged, but the meanest shall have their wants considered. Hunger is a natural desire which cannot be mortified, but must be gratified, and cannot be put off with any thing but meat; therefore we say, It will break through stone walls. Now the Lord is for the body, and allowed his own appointment to be dispensed with in a case of distress; much more might the tradition of the elders be dispensed with. Note, That may be done in a case of necessity which may not be done at another time; there are laws which necessity has not, but it is a law to itself. Men do not despise, but pity, a thief that steals to satisfy his soul when he is hungry, Pro 6:30.

[2.] He urges a daily instance of the priests, which they likewise read in the law, and according to which was the constant usage, Mat 12:5. The priests in the temple did a great deal of servile work on the sabbath day; killing, flaying, burning the sacrificed beasts, which in a common case would have been profaning the sabbath; and yet it was never reckoned any transgression of the fourth commandment, because the temple-service required and justified it. This intimates, that those labours are lawful on the sabbath day which are necessary, not only to the support of life, but to the service of the day; as tolling a bell to call the congregation together, travelling to church, and the like. Sabbath rest is to promote, not to hinder, sabbath worship.

(2.) He justifies them by arguments, three cogent ones.

[1.] In this place is one greater than the temple, Mat 12:6. If the temple-service would justify what the priests did in their ministration, the service of Christ would much more justify the disciples in what they did in their attendance upon him. The Jews had an extreme veneration for the temple: it sanctified the gold; Stephen was accused for blaspheming that holy place (Act 6:13); but Christ, in a corn-field, was greater than the temple, for in him dwelt not the presence of God symbolically, but all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Note, If whatever we do, we do it in the name of Christ, and as unto him, it shall be graciously accepted of God, however it may be censured and cavilled at by men.

[2.] God will have mercy and not sacrifice, Mat 12:7. Ceremonial duties must give way to moral, and the natural, royal law of love and self-preservation must take place of ritual observances. This is quoted from Hos 6:6. It was used before, Mat 9:13, in vindication of mercy to the souls of men; here, of mercy to their bodies. The rest of the sabbath was ordained for man's good, in favour of the body, Deu 5:14. Now no law must be construed so as to contradict its own end. If you had known what this means, had known what it is to be of a merciful disposition, you would have been sorry that they were forced to do this to satisfy their hunger, and would not have condemned the guiltless. Note, First, Ignorance is the cause of our rash and uncharitable censures of our brethren. Secondly, It is not enough for us to know the scriptures, but we must labour to know the meaning of them. Let him that readeth understand. Thirdly, Ignorance of the meaning of the scripture is especially shameful in those who take upon them to teach others.

[3.] The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day, Mat 12:8. That law, as all the rest, is put into the hand of Christ, to be altered, enforced, or dispensed with, as he sees good. It was by the Son that God made the world, and by him he instituted the sabbath in innocency; by him he gave the ten commandments at mount Sinai, and as Mediator he is entrusted with the institution of ordinances, and to make what changes he thought fit; and particularly, as being Lord of the sabbath, he was authorized to make such an alteration of that day, as that it should become the Lord's day, the Lord Christ's day. And if Christ be the Lord of the sabbath, it is fit the day and all the work of it should be dedicated to him. By virtue of this power Christ here enacts, that works of necessity, if they be really such, and not a pretended and self-created necessity, are lawful on the sabbath day; and this explication of the law plainly shows that it was to be perpetual. Exceptio firmat regulam - The exception confirms the rule.

Christ having thus silenced the Pharisees, and got clear of them (Mat 12:9), departed, and went into their synagogue, the synagogue of these Pharisees, in which they presided, and toward which he was going, when they picked this quarrel with him. Note, First, We must take heed lest any thing that occurs in our way to holy ordinances unfit us for, or divert us fRom. our due attendance on them. Let us proceed in the way of our duty, notwithstanding the artifices of Satan, who endeavours, by the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and many other ways, to ruffle and discompose us. Secondly, We must not, for the sake of private feuds and personal piques, draw back from public worship. Though the Pharisees had thus maliciously cavilled at Christ, yet he went into their synagogue. Satan gains this point, if, by sowing discord among brethren, he prevail to drive them, or any of them, from the synagogue, and the communion of the faithful.

II. Christ, by healing the man that had the withered hand on the sabbath day, shows that works of mercy are lawful and proper to be done on that day. The work of necessity was done by the disciples, and justified by him; the work of mercy was done by himself; the works of mercy were his works of necessity; it was his meat and drink to do good. I must preach, says he, Luk 4:43. This cure is recorded for the sake of the time when it was wrought, on the sabbath.

Here is, 1. The affliction that this poor man was in; his hand was withered so that he was utterly disabled to get his living by working with his hands. St. Jerome says, that the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, adds this circumstance to this story of the man with the withered hand, that he was Caementarius - a bricklayer, and applied himself to Christ thus; "Lord, I am a bricklayer, and have got my living by my labour (manibus victum quaeritans); I beseech thee, O Jesus, restore me the use of my hand, that I may not be obliged to beg my bread" (ne turpiter mendicem cibos). Hieron. in loc. This poor man was in the synagogue. Note, Those who can do but little, or have but little to do for the world, must do so much the more for their souls; as the rich, the aged, and the infirm.

2. A spiteful question which the Pharisees put to Christ upon the sight of this man. They asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal? We read not here of any address this poor man made to Christ for a cure, but they observed Christ began to take notice of him, and knew it was usual for him to be found of those that sought him not, and therefore with their badness they anticipated his goodness, and started this case as a stumbling-block in the way of doing good; Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath-day? Whether it was lawful for physicians to heal on that day or not, which was the thing disputed in their books, one would think it past dispute, that it is lawful for prophets to heal, for him to heal who discovered a divine power and goodness in all he did of this kind, and manifested himself to be sent of God. Did ever any ask, whether it is lawful for God to heal, to send his word and heal? It is true, Christ was now made under the law, by a voluntary submission to it, but he was never made under the precepts of the elders. Is it lawful to heal? To enquire into the lawfulness and unlawfulness of actions is very good, and we cannot apply ourselves to any with such enquiries more fitly than to Christ; but they asked here, not that they might be instructed by him, but that they might accuse him. If he should say that it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day, they would accuse him of a contradiction to the fourth commandment; to so great a degree of superstition had the Pharisees brought the sabbath rest, that, unless in peril of life, they allowed not any medicinal operations on the sabbath day. If he should say that it was not lawful, they would accuse him of partiality, having lately justified his disciples in plucking the ears of corn on that day.

3. Christ's answer to this question, by way of appeal to themselves, and their own opinion and practice, Mat 12:11, Mat 12:12. In case a sheep (though but one, of which the loss would not be very great) should fall into a pit on the sabbath day, would they not lift it out? No doubt they might do it, the fourth commandment allows it; they must do it, for a merciful man regardeth the life of his beast, and for their parts they would do it, rather than lose a sheep; does Christ take care for sheep? Yes, he does; he preserves and provides for both man and beast. But here he says it for our sakes (Co1 9:9, Co1 9:10), and hence argues, How much then is a man better than a sheep? Sheep are not only harmless but useful creatures, and are prized and tended accordingly; yet a man is here preferred far before them. Note, Man, in respect of his being, is a great deal better, and more valuable, than the best of the brute creatures: man is a reasonable creature, capable of knowing, loving, and glorifying God, and therefore is better than a sheep. The sacrifice of a sheep could therefore not atone for the sin of a soul. They do not consider this, who are more solicitous for the education, preservation, and supply of their horses and dogs than of God's poor, or perhaps their own household.

Hence Christ infers a truth, which, even at first sight, appears very reasonable and good-natured; that it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days; they had asked, Is it lawful to hear? Christ proves it is lawful to do well, and let any one judge whether healing, as Christ healed, was not doing well. Note, There are more ways of doing well upon sabbath days, than by the duties of God's immediate worship; attending the sick, relieving the poor, helping those who are fallen into sudden distress, and call for speedy relief; this is doing good: and this must be done from a principle of love and charity, with humility and self-denial, and a heavenly frame of spirit, and this is doing well, and it shall be accepted, Gen 4:7.

4. Christ's curing of the man, notwithstanding the offence which he foresaw the Pharisees would take at it, Mat 12:13. Though they could not answer Christ's arguments, they were resolved to persist in their prejudice and enmity; but Christ went on with his work notwithstanding. Note, Duty is not to be left undone, nor opportunities of doing good neglected, for fear of giving offence. Now the manner of the cure is observable; he said to the man, "Stretch forth thy hand, exert thyself as well as thou canst;" and he did so, and it was restored whole. This, as other cures Christ wrought, had a spiritual significancy. (1.) By nature our hands are withered, we are utterly unable of ourselves to doing any thing that is good. (2.) It is Christ only, by the power of his grace, that cures us; he heals the withered hand by putting life into the dead soul, works in us both to will and to do. (3.) In order to our cure, he commands us to stretch forth our hands, to improve our natural powers, and do as well as we can; to stretch them out in prayer to God, to stretch them out to lay hold on Christ by faith, to stretch them out in holy endeavours. Now this man could not stretch forth his withered hand of himself, any more than the impotent man could arise and carry his bed, or Lazarus come forth out of his grave; yet Christ bid him do it. God's commands to us to do the duty which of ourselves we are not able to do are no more absurd or unjust, than this command to the man with the withered hand, to stretch it forth; for with the command, there is a promise of grace which is given by the word. Turn ye at my reproof, and I will pour out my Spirit, Pro 1:23. Those who perish are as inexcusable as this man would have been, if he had not attempted to stretch forth his hand, and so had not been healed. But those who are saved have no more to boast of than this man had of contributing to his own cure, by stretching forth his hand, but are as much indebted to the power and grace of Christ as he was.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

CHAPTER XII.

Jesus and his disciples go through the cornfields on the

Sabbath, and the latter pluck and eat some of the ears, at

which the Pharisees take offence, 1, 2.

Our Lord vindicates them, 3-8.

The man with the withered hand cured, 9-13.

The Pharisees seek his destruction, 14.

He heals the multitudes, and fulfils certain prophecies, 15-21.

Heals the blind and dumb demoniac, 22, 23.

The malice of the Pharisees reproved by our Lord, 24-30.

The sin against the Holy Ghost, 31, 32.

Good and bad trees known by their fruits-evil and good men by

their conduct, 33-37.

Jonah, a sign of Christ's death and resurrection, 38-40.

The men of Nineveh and the queen of the south shall rise up in

the judgment against the Jews, 41, 42.

Of the unclean spirit, 43-45.

Christ's mother and brethren seek him, 46-50.

NOTES ON CHAP. XII.

Verse 1. At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn] "The time is determined by Luke in these words, εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω, that is, on the Sabbath from the second-first.

"1. Provision was made by the Divine law that the sheaf of first-fruits should be offered on the second day of the pass-over week, Le 23:10-11. On the morrow after the Sabbath, the priest shall shake (or wave) it. Not on the morrow after the ordinary Sabbath of the week, but the morrow after the first of the pass-over week, which was a Sabbatic day, Ex 12:16; Le 23:7. Hence the seventy, επαυριον της πρωτης, the morrow of the first day; the Chaldee, the morrow after the holy day. The rabbins, Solomon and Menachen, have it, On the morrow after the first day of the pass-over feast; of which mention had been made in the verses foregoing.

"But now, from the second day of the pass-over solemnity, wherein the sheaf was offered, were numbered seven weeks to pentecost: for the day of the sheaf, and the day of pentecost did mutually respect each other; for on this second day of the pass-over, the offering of the sheaf was supplicatory, and by way of prayer, beseeching a blessing upon the new corn, and leave to eat it, and to pot in the sickle into the standing corn. Now, the offering of the first-fruit loaves on the day of pentecost, (Le 23:15-17,) did respect the giving of thanks for the finishing and housing of the barley-harvest. Therefore, in regard of this relation, these two solemnities were linked together, that both might respect the harvest; that, the harvest beginning; this, the harvest ended: this depended on that, and was numbered seven weeks after it. Therefore, the computation of the time coming between could not but carry with it the memory of that second day of the pass-over week; and hence pentecost is called the feast of weeks, De 16:10. The true calculation of the time between could not otherwise be retained, as to Sabbaths, but by numbering thus: this is σαββατων δευτεροπρωτον, the first Sabbath after the second day of the pass-over. This is δευτεροδευρερον, the second Sabbath after that second day. And so of the rest. In the Jerusalem Talmud, the word שבת פרוטוגמייא shebeth protogamiya, the Sabbath, προτογαμιας, of the first marriage, is a composition not very unlike." Lightfoot.

His disciples were an hungered] Were hungry. The former is a mode of expression totally obsolete. How near does the translation of this verse come to our ancient mother-tongue, the Anglo-Saxon! - [Anglo-Saxon] - The Healer went on rest-day over acres: truly his learning knights hungred, and they began to pluck the ear and eaten. We may well wonder at the extreme poverty of Christ and his disciples. He was himself present with them, and yet permitted them to lack bread! A man, therefore, is not forsaken of God because he is in want. It is more honourable to suffer the want of all temporal things in fellowship with Christ and his followers, than to have all things in abundance in connection with the world.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

XII.

(1) At that time.—St. Luke (Luk_6:1) defines the time more specifically as “the second first sabbath.” The question, what is meant by that term, will be discussed in the Notes on that passage. The facts of the case place it clearly between the Passover and the Feast of Pentecost, between the beginning of the barley and the end of the wheat harvest. The position which the narrative occupies in Mar_2:23, Luk_6:1, immediately after the feast in Matthew’s house, differs so widely from St. Matthew’s arrangement, that we are again at sea in attempting to construct a harmony, and can only regard the words “at that time” as belonging to the separate history in some other position than that in which he has placed it.

Began to pluck the ears of corn.—Note St. Mark’s stronger phrase, “to make a path, plucking the ears,” and St. Luke’s description that they ate them, “rubbing them in their hands.” The act was permitted by the Law as far as the rights of property were concerned (Deu_23:25), but it was against the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law of the Sabbath. To pluck the ears was to reap, to rub the husks from the grain was to thresh; and the new Teacher was therefore, they thought, tacitly sanctioning a distinct breach of the holiness of the day of rest.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

Ver. 1. Jesus went on the Sabbath day] St Luke calleth it "the second Sabbath after the first," Mat 6:1, that is, the second anniversary or solemn feast from the first (δευτεροπρωτον), to wit, from the passover Sabbath, and this was Pentecost.

And his disciples were an hungred] Hereby he hardened and inured them to further and future trials: teaching them also to depend upon God’s good providence for their necessary maintenance. The martyrs had their bread made of meal half mixed with sawdust.

To pluck the ears of corn and to eat] This was their best Sabbath day’s dinner: may not we be glad of mean fare on any day, when our betters fared no better on so high a day? See my Common Place of Abstinence.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And his disciples being hungry. How truly admirable is the conduct of the apostles, who would not depart from the company of Jesus, though pressed by the greatest hunger and fatigue, not even to take a little refreshment for the body. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It is remarked by St. Jerome, that the Pharisees did not accuse the disciples of theft, but of a breach of the sabbath. St. Luke calls this sabbath, Sabbatum secundo primum, which is differently explained by interpreters. Ribeira, following St. John Chrysostom and Theophilactus, thinks that every sabbath was so called, which followed immediately any feast. Maldonatus is of opinion that some particular sabbath is pointed out by this name, and conjectures that it was the sabbath of Pentecost, because it is the second of the great feast, viz. the Passover, Pentecost, Scenopegia, or of the Tabernacles. --- In the Greek, sabbath is in the plural, and means the days of the sabbath or rest, which were a part of the feast. The three great feasts lasted a whole week each. They were all three called Greek: prota, i.e. great, solemn feasts. The first was that of the Passover, with the seven days of unleavened bread, called Greek: protoproton, the first-first sabbath by excellence: the second was the great feast of Pentecost, Greek: deteroproton, the second-first sabbath, (which seems to have been the feast meant by the evangelist in this place, as at this season the corn was ripe in Palestine) and the third was the feast of tabernacles, Greek: tritoproton, the third-first great sabbath. Many, however, are of the opinion, that by the second-first sabbath is meant the octave day of the feast, which was ordered to be equally solemnized with the first day of the feast. (Leviticus xxiii. 36. 39. and Numbers xxix. 35.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Mark relating this story, Mar 2:23, varies little. Luke relating it, Luk 6:1, saith it was on the second sabbath after the first, and his disciples did eat, rubbing them. God in his law, Deu 23:25, had said, When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand, but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn. To take for our need so much of our neighbour’s goods as we may reasonably think that, if he were present, and knew our circumstances, he would give us, is no theft. The Pharisees therefore do not accuse them of theft, but of violation of the sabbath. Luke saith this happened upon the second sabbath after the first. Whether that was the sabbath next following the feast of unleavened bread, (which was about the time of our Easter), the first and last days of which were sabbaths in the Jewish sense, or the feast of tabernacles, or any other, is not much material for us to know. But on a sabbath day it was that our Saviour

went through the corn, and his disciples were an hungred: this may teach us their low estate and condition in the world. He could quickly have supplied their hunger, but he chose to leave them to relieve themselves with plucking, rubbing, and eating of the corn, that he might have an opportunity to instruct them and the Pharisees in the true doctrine of the sabbath.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Plucking Corn on the Sabbath. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

1-8. Plucking the corn on the sabbath (Mar_2:23; Luk_6:1). This chapter begins the period of active conflict with the Pharisees. It is characteristic of the pedantry of the Pharisees that their opposition turned more upon minute points of legal observance than upon broad principles. The Fourth Gospel agrees with the synoptists in making the sabbath controversy of leading importance in the development of hostility to Christ (Joh_5:9; Joh_7:22; Joh_9:14). St. Matthew's account of this incident is the fullest.

1. At that time] RV 'season.' This is one of the few events that can be accurately dated. The corn is in the ear, but not yet quite ripe for reaping. The time is therefore about May (perhaps April), and St. Matthew is therefore correct in placing the event soon after the return of the Twelve at Passover-time: see on Mat_11:1, Mat_11:25. But there is no attempt at strict chronological order; e.g. all the synoptists place this event before the feeding of the five thousand, which really preceded it. On the sabbath day] Lk 'on the second sabbath after the first': see on Luk_6:1. Were an hungered] Why? Some think they had been engaged with Jesus in some arduous spiritual labours. More probably they were coming home from a long synagogue service tired and hungry. Jewish custom allowed no food whatever to be eaten on the sabbath (except by the sick) until after morning service.

2. That which is not lawful] Maimonides says: 'He that reaps on the sabbath, though never so little, is guilty. And to pluck the ears of corn is a kind of reaping.'

3. Have ye not read] Jesus might have defended His disciples on purely technical grounds, maintaining that they had broken not the Law, but the interpretation which certain rabbis placed upon it. But instead of this, He laid down the principle that even the Divine Law itself, so far as it is purely ceremonial, is subservient to human needs, and can be broken without sin, for adequate cause. He took first the case of David, who together with his compardons ate the shewbread. David's act, which was sanctioned by the high priest, who at the time was the authorised interpreter of the Law, involved three distinct breaches of the divine Law, (1) the entering into the holy place, (2) the eating of the shewbread, (3) the breach of the sabbath, for such the day seems to have been.

Our Lord's statement of the case shows careful study of the OT. narrative (1Sa_21:1): e.g. it is not said in the OT. that David entered into the tabernacle, but it is inferred from Mat_12:7, where he is seen by Doeg, who was 'detained before the Lord.' It is not said that David's attendants ate the shewbread, but it is inferred from Mat_12:5. Nor is it said that the day was the sabbath. This is inferred from it being the day for the changing of the loaves (Mat_12:6), which was the sabbath (Lev_24:8). As to the name of the high priest at this time (a well-known difficulty), see on Mar_2:26.

5 Or have ye not read?] see Num_28:9. They had read it, but not understood the principle which it implied. Our Lord alluded to a recognised Jewish practice. The rabbis said, 'There is no keeping of the sabbath in the temple.' 'The servile work which is done in the holy things is not servile.'

6. One greater than the temple] lit. 'a greater thing.' He means Himself. If the servants of the Temple, doing the Temple's work, may break the sabbath, much more may the servants of Christ, who is greater and holier than the Temple.

7. I will have mercy] Hos_6:6, quoted also Mat_9:13. Here the meaning is that God is satisfied if men keep the sabbath in the right spirit, i.e. as a day of holy rest. He does not demand obedience to an irksome code of sabbath observance. 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath' (Mar_2:27).

8. The authority of the Son of man (the Messiah) extends to the abrogation of the whole Law, and therefore of the Law of the sabbath. Observe that Jesus rests the final vindication of His disciples upon His own inherent authority, which extends to the abrogation even of the divine Law: cp. Mat_5:21; Mat_9:6.

Some understand the 'son of man' here to be not Jesus, but a personification of the human race, so that the meaning is, 'The human race may adapt the sabbath day to its needs.' This sense would suit the context, but it lacks authority, there being no clear and unambiguous passage where the phrase 'the son of man' means anything but our Lord.

9-21. Another sabbath controversy. The man with the withered hand (Mar_3:1; Luk_6:6). The sequence is the same in all the evangelists. St. Luke mentions that this took place on another sabbath.

10. A man] In the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews (65-100 a.d.) the man with the withered hand is described as a mason, who begged help from Jesus, saying, 'I was a mason earning my living with my hands. I pray Thee, Jesus, restore me my health, that I may not disgracefully beg my bread.'

Is it lawful] Only malice could call healing by a word, without labour or medicine, a breach of the sabbath. Even the use of medical assistance was not forbidden in all cases on the sabbath. The rabbis said, 'All danger of life or limb abrogates the sabbath,' and this was interpreted to mean even possible danger.

11. If it fall into a pit] The schools of Hillel and Shammai differed on this point, but it is clear from our Lord's way of referring to the practice that it was generally allowed.

12. How much then] a striking saying on the value of human life and health. The literal meaning does not exclude the more spiritual interpretation that a man is of more value than a sheep as possessing an immortal soul.

14. Held a council] RV 'took counsel.' St. Mark adds, 'with the Herodians.'

15-17. Cp. Mar_3:7-12, where a fuller account is given. St. Mark mentions that the multitudes came from Idumæa, and from beyond Jordan, and from Tyre and Sidon. This explains the references to the Gentiles (Mat_12:18, Mat_12:21), who were probably among those who were healed.

16. Charged them] In St. Mark He charges the unclean spirits. The design of Jesus was to repress the dangerous popular enthusiasm which might lead to an outbreak.

17. Esaias] i.e. Isaiah. The quotation is from Isa_42:1-4. It is a free translation from the Heb., with occasional correspondences with the LXX. It curiously omits the words, 'He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till He have set judgment in the earth,' which would have been very applicable to our Lord in connexion with the discouragements which had just begun.

18. My servant] i.e. 'the Messiah.' Jesus is so called frequently in the Acts (Act_3:13, Act_3:26 RV; Act_4:27, Act_4:30 RV), also in the 'Didache.' He is hardly ever so called in later writings.

19. He shall not court popularity.

20. The bruised reed and the smoking flax (or, rather, 'dimly burning wick') in this connexion are the persons weak in body whom Jesus healed, and those weak in faith, whose faith He strengthened. The idea is that Jesus is tender and loving, not harsh, towards human weakness. Judgment is here the Christian religion.

22-37. The Pharisees accuse Jesus of being in league with Beelzebub (Mar_3:22 cp. Luk_11:17-23; Mat_9:32-34). The ridiculous charge of the Pharisees is strong evidence of the genuineness of Christ's miracles. They would have denied them if they could (see Joh_9:18), but this was impossible, so numerous and notorious were they. So they started the flimsy theory that Christ was in league with the devil, not really believing it, but out of malice.

The later Jews said that Jesus learnt how to work His miracles from an Egyptian juggler, and the heathen Celsus (170 a.d.) repeated their calumny with some improvements of his own. The Jewish Talmudists said, 'The son of the adulteress' (i.e. of the Virgin Mary) 'brought magic out of Egypt, by cuttings which he had made in his flesh.' 'Jesus practised magic and deceived, and drove Israel to idolatry.' It is interesting to notice that Mahomet indignantly repudiated these Jewish calumnies.

23. The Son of David] the popular title of the Messiah: Mat_9:27; Mat_15:22; Mat_20:30; Mat_21:9; Mat_22:42; Joh_7:42. See on Mat_1:1.

24. By Beelzebub] see on Mat_10:25.

26. Satan] The original Heb. word of which diabolos ('devil') is the Gk. translation. It means 'accuser,' 'calumniator,' 'adversary.'

27. Your children] i.e. 'your disciples.' Famous rabbis and their disciples professed to cast out devils by magic and exorcism, and their success was attributed to the power of God. Why then, asked Jesus, are My miracles, which are much more striking than theirs, and are not worked by magic, but by a mere word, not regarded as coming from God, and why do I not receive from you the same honour as your own exorcists? Josephus (born 37 a.d.) writes: 'I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and his captains. He put a ring to the nostrils of the demoniac, and drew out the demon through his nostrils.. making mention of Solomon and reciting the incantations which he composed.' See also Act_19:13; Tob_8:2.

28. By the Spirit of God] Luk_11:20; 'by the finger of God.' Then the kingdom of God is come unto you] This is shown not by the mere fact of Jesus working miracles (the exorcists were supposed to work them too), but by the extraordinary character, number, and variety of His miracles, which fully fulfilled what the prophets had spoken of the wonders of the Messianic age: see on Mat_11:2-6.

29. The argument is, 'No man can carry away the furniture from a strong man's house until he has overpowered and bound the strong man. So I could not remove the inferior devils out of the bodies of men, unless I had first conquered and bound their master, Satan himself.'

30. He that is not with me is against me] Jesus refers to the Pharisees. Since they do not take His side in His warfare against Satan, they are on Satan's side. Since they do not help Him to gather the sheaves of the spiritual harvest, they scatter them and prevent them from being gathered into God's garner: see Mat_3:12.

Some think that 'he that is not with me' and 'that gathereth not with me' is Satan. This also makes good sense.

31. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Mar_3:28-30; Luk_12:10). What this sin was is not really doubtful. St. Matthew intimates that the Pharisees had come very near to committing it. St. Mark states exactly what their sin was. It lay in their malignant slander that Jesus was possessed by an unclean spirit. They regarded the spirit of holiness, which showed itself in the acts and miracles of Jesus, as diabolical. They called good evil and evil good, having become like Satan himself, dead to every impression of true holiness, and unable to recognise it when they saw it. The sin is not a sin against the Holy Spirit considered as a divine person, but against the Spirit, as manifested in the perfect life of Christ, whose acts so evidently reflected God's own benevolence and holiness, that to ascribe them to the devil, was a sin of the most deadly character. This, and not blasphemy against Christ in general, or denial of His claims, or active opposition to Him, or even putting Him to death, is the unpardonable sin.

It is a significant fact that even the most exacting modern critics of Christ repudiate the Pharisaic position. Men like Renan and Strauss, who reject His divine claims, and find many faults with His career, yet recognise Him as one in whom the Spirit of God dwelt, and as one of the greatest religious heroes of mankind. And those who think thus are not far from the kingdom of God: cp. Luk_12:10 see further on Heb_6:4; Heb_10:26; 1Jn_5:16.

32. The world to come] This phrase has two meanings among the Jews, (1) the age of the Messiah which begins with the resurrection of the dead, (2) the state of souls after death. E.g. they say, 'The world to come is, when a man is departed out of this world.' The second meaning is to be adopted. Jesus declares the sin against the Spirit to be unpardonable either before or after death. The punishment is eternal, because, as St. Mark says, the sin itself is eternal, a token of a nature so far gone in depravity that repentance is impossible, and recovery hopeless. It is this hardened and vitiated character, not the isolated sin, that God punishes.

This passage has frequently been regarded as containing a hint of the possibility of pardon beyond the grave. St. Augustine says, 'For it would not be truly affirmed of certain persons that they are not pardoned in this world or the next, unless there were some who though not pardoned in this, yet are pardoned in the world to come.' Plumptre says, 'If one sin only is thus excluded from forgiveness in that “coming age,” other sins cannot stand on the same level, and the darkness behind the veil is lit up with at least a gleam of hope.' Stier speaks of 'the demonstrable inference that other sins are forgiven also in the world to come.' Olshausen infers 'that all other sins can be forgiven in the world to come, of course under the general presuppositions of repentance and faith.' The view that pardon beyond the grave is impossible, is learnedly maintained by J. Lightfoot, who is followed by A. B. Bruce. Many commentators leave the question open, but there is a tendency in modern times to admit the possibility. With this question is closely connected that of prayer for the dead. Both the belief in the terminable nature of future punishment and the practice of prayer for the dead were familiar to our Lord's contemporaries.

33-36. Cp. Luk_6:43-45.

33. 'Pharisees, be logical. You say that to cast out devils is good, but that I who do it, am corrupt. That is as if you said, The fruit of this tree is good, but the tree itself is corrupt. Make up your minds which way you will have it. Either say that My works are good, and therefore that I am good also, or else that My works are corrupt, and that therefore I am corrupt also. You cannot separate a tree from its fruit, for a tree is known by its fruit. Nor can you separate a man from his works, for he is known by them.'

34. 'The same argument applies to words. A man is known by his words. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Your evil and venomous words, declaring that I have an evil spirit, and work My miracles by Beelzebub, prove you to be really the “off-spring of vipers,” as John has already rightly called you (Mat_3:7). Such men as you cannot, even if you would, speak good words.'

36. Every idle word] i.e. every idle word that expresses the true inward character of the man. These will pronounce judgment upon him.

38-45. A sign demanded. Astounding impudence after they had just ascribed His miracles to Beelzebub, and declared Him possessed with an unclean spirit. It was the practice of Jesus to work signs for those who sought them in a right spirit. He worked many for the disciples of John (Joh_11:4). He raised Lazarus 'that they may believe that Thou didst send Me' (Joh_11:42). Signs, however, were for honest enquirers, not for malignant enemies like the Pharisees. Moreover, the sign which they asked was not of the kind which Christ was willing to work. They wanted a mere portent which appealed to the sense of wonder, and had no spiritual or moral significance. Such signs Jesus always refused. Yet in refusing, He promised a future sign so remarkable as to startle believers and unbelievers alike, His own Resurrection.

38. Luk_11:16 : cp. Mat_16:1; Mar_8:11. A sign] Lk 'a sign from heaven': something startling, unlike the healing of the sick to which they were accustomed. Let Him repeat the miracle of Moses, and call down manna from the skies, as the Messiah was expected to do (Joh_6:30).

39-42. Luk_11:29-36.

39. Adulterous] True religion was represented by the prophets as marriage with Jehovah, so that apostasy from Him was called adultery or fornication (Isa_57:3, etc.).

The sign of the prophet Jonas] RV 'Jonah.' 'The sign of the prophet Jonah,' which is mentioned here and in Mat_16:4 as the only sign to be vouchsafed to unbelievers, is understood by some to be our Lord's Resurrection, and by others His preaching. The question turns upon the authenticity of Mat_12:40. If this is authentic, the sign is certainly the Resurrection; if it is not authentic, the sign is probably our Lord's preaching, which is expressly compared to Jonah's preaching to the Ninevites (Mat_12:41; Luk_11:32). The question is a difficult one. Against the authenticity of the v. may be pleaded its omission by St. Luke and the nature of the context, which speaks of the preaching of Solomon and Jonah. In favour of the authenticity may be pleaded the fact that the v. shows clear traces of an Aramaic origin, and therefore presumably formed part of Matthew's Hebrew 'logia'; also that it contains an historic difficulty (the statement that our Lord's body lay for three nights in the grave) which would easily account for its omission by St. Luke. The present writer holds Mat_12:40, to be an authentic part of the Matthæan 'logia,' and therefore 'the sign of Jonah' to be the Resurrection: cp. Mat_27:63; Joh_2:19.

40. Three days and three nights] The difficulty is that our Lord only lay in the grave two nights. The expression resembles the Jewish inclusive way of reckoning ('on the third day,' etc.), but goes beyond it. The most plausible explanation is that of J. Lightfoot. He supposes that Jesus, speaking in Aramaic, said, 'The son of man shall be three 'onahs in the heart of the earth.' 'Onak meant a day and a night, and a part of an 'onah was reckoned as a whole, so that the Gk. translator not quite accurately rendered the expression, 'three days and three nights.' The heart (i.e. 'centre') of the earth] Not the grave, which is on the surface, but Hades, which popular imagination placed in the centre of the earth.

Our Lord's use of the story of Jonah and the whale, to illustrate His Resurrection, need not imply that He regarded it as literal history. The book of Jonah is probably a symbolical or allegorical narrative (see Intro. to Jonah).

42. The queen] see on 1Ki_10:1.

43-45. The return of the unclean spirit (Luk_11:24-26). The connexion in St. Matthew is preferable.

The expulsion of the evil spirit represents the submission of the nation to the baptism of John, which was a baptism of repentance. The sweeping and garnishing of the house represents the superficial but fairly general acceptance of Christ's teaching during the early part of His ministry, to which the Gospels bear witness. The return of the evil spirit with seven other spirits more wicked than himself represents the obstinate and final rejection of Christ by the nation, which was soon to follow, and of which the blasphemy of the Pharisees and their unbelieving demand for a sign were already an earnest.

According to the primary meaning of the parable, the possessed man represents the Jewish nation. But the Christian preacher is quite within his rights when he proceeds to apply it to the individual soul, and to urge the necessity of full and complete repentance, the deceitfulness of merely formal religion, and the danger of relapse. The details of the habits of demons are not to be pressed. Christ adopts the popular phraseology about them as part of the machinery of the parable, without necessarily endorsing it in all respects.

43. A man] i.e. the Jewish nation.

Dry places] or deserts, were supposed to be the favourite abode of demons (Tob_8:3; Bar_4:35; Isa_13:21; Isa_34:14). These pictorial details must not be pressed as if they were dogmatic statements.

44. My house] i.e. the man himself; here, the nation. Empty] Though the evil has been temporarily expelled, nothing good has been put in its place, so that the demon can return. If our Lord had been admitted, the return would have been impossible. The 'sweeping' and 'garnishing' is that empty show of faith and repentance and good works, which only invites a more terrible fall.

45. Seven] Symbolical for completeness. As many as the house will hold. Mary of Magdala had seven devils (Mar_16:9; Luk_8:2).

46-50. His mother and brethren (Mar_3:31; Luk_8:19). Jesus here, as on other occasions, declares Himself independent of family ties, and united by spiritual kinship to all who do God's will.

The Brethren of Jesus

Our Lord had four 'brethren,' James, Joseph (Joses), Simon, Judas; and at least three sisters (Mat_13:55). What their exact relationship to Him was, is not certain. There are three main views—(1) that of St. Jerome, hence called the Hieronymian view, that they were our Lord's cousins, being sons of Mary the Virgin's sister and of Clopas (see Joh_19:25 RV). Most supporters of this view think that three of the brethren were apostles. Jerome's theory, until recently the predominant one in England, is now held by very few. (2) The Epiphanian view, so called from its advocacy by St. Epiphanius, that they were sons of Joseph by a former wife. This is the theory of the Eastern Church, and has been learnedly supported in England by Lightfoot. (3) The Helvidian view, advocated in ancient times by Helvidius, that they were children of Joseph and Mary born after Jesus. Prof. Mayor is the chief recent exponent of this view.

The arguments for the last two views are nearly evenly balanced, and it is difficult to decide which is right.

The following points seem certain from the NT.:—

1. That the 'brethren' did not live with 'Mary of Clopas,' but with the Virgin Mary, and were regarded as members of her family (Mat_12:46; Mat_13:55; Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3).

2. That they were jealous of Jesus, and up to the Resurrection disbelieved His claims (Mar_3:21; Mar_6:4; Joh_7:5.).

3. And that consequently none of the brethren were included among the Twelve Apostles.

4. That they were converted after the Resurrection by the appearance to James (1Co_15:7), and henceforth associated themselves with the disciples (Act_1:14).

The chief arguments in favour of the Epiphanian view are:—

1. That it represents the most ancient tradition, being already current in Palestine in the 2nd century.

2. That if the Virgin had had a large family, some of the members of which, like James the bishop of Jerusalem, attained to prominent positions in the Church, the (practically) unanimous tradition that she remained always a virgin, could never have arisen.

3. That it is more reverent to suppose that our Lord's mother never had any other children.

4. That Luk_1:26-38 implies that already before the birth of Jesus, she had devoted herself (with her betrothed's consent) to a life of virginity.

5. That our Lord upon the cross would not have committed the care of His mother to St. John, if she had had four living sons to support her.

The chief arguments in favour of the Helvidian view are:—

1. That the high esteem for virginity generally prevalent in the early Church made Christians unwilling to think of Mary as the mother of other children, and consequently the Epiphanian theory was invented.

2. That Luk_2:7 implies that Mary had other children.

3. That Mat_1:18-25 imply that the connubial relations of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus were of the usual kind.

4. That 'brother,' when used without further explanation, naturally means a full brother, and not a half brother, or foster brother.

In the opinion of the present writer the arguments for the Epiphanian view slightly preponderate.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-50. The opposition that our Lord met with

(1) from his enemies (vers. 1-45);

(2) from his relations (vers. 46-50); and the manner in which he dealt with it.

Vers. 1-45.

(1) Opposition from his enemies.

(a) Conscious and wilful opposition (vers. 1-37).

(i) As regards the sabbath (vers. 1-14).

(ii) An interlude. The evangelist sees in our Lord"s behaviour the fulfilment of Isaiah"s prophecy (vers. 15-21).

(iii) The opposition carried to the extreme of accusing him of alliance with Beelzebub.

Christ shows the monstrous character of such an accusation, and the absence which it discloses of all spirituality of mind (vers. 22-37).

(b) Opposition due to lack of energy in spiritual things. Christ contrasts the behaviour of heathen mentioned in the Old Testament, and warns the Jews of the result of their present apathy (vers. 38-45).

Vers. 1-8. The sabbath in relation to the preparation of food. Parallel passages: Mar_2:23-28 Luk_6:1-5. St. Matthew here returns to the Framework, which he left at Mat_9:26 or 34.

At that time (Mat_11:25, note) Jesus went (eporeuyh). It has been suggested that he was now on his way to the synagogue spoken of in ver. 9 (but see note there). Wherever he was going, it must have been within about three quarters of a mile distance (two thousand cubits; see Dr. Lumby, on Act_1:12, "a sabbath day"s journey;" and Schurer, II 2:102). On the sabbath day. Defined in the Received Text of Luke by the anomalous term "second-first," for the genesis of which see especially Westcott and Hort, "App." Through the corn; the corn-fields (Revised Version, as also Authorized Version in the parallel passages). If it was barley harvest, the time would be probably the beginning of May; if wheat harvest, as seems more likely, about the beginning of June. And his disciples were a hungered. So that it was not for his own sake that our Lord acted as he did. And began . They could therefore hardly have eaten much when the complaint was made. To pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. It was legal to pluck corn from a field through which one passed, (Deu_23:25) and it is said to be allowed still; but as it was held by the scribes to be a form of reaping, and perhaps of threshing also, it was considered illegal on the sabbath (cf. Edersheim, "Life," 2:56).

Vers. 1-14. Christ the Lord of the sabbath.

I NECESSARY WORK MAY BE DONE ON THE SABBATH.

1. The accusation of the Pharisees. The Lord"s disciples were hungry; they gathered the ears of corn. This was allowed by the Law. (Deu_23:25) But it was the sabbath day, and there were Pharisees in attendance, some of them rulers of the neighbouring synagogue, some perhaps spies, sent from Jerusalem to watch our Lord. After the healing of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, the leading Pharisees at Jerusalem had resolved to take an opportunity of compassing the death of Jesus; and from that time their emissaries appear to have dogged his steps wherever he went. They watched him everywhere in the corn-fields and in the synagogues; in Galilee and in Persea. And now they accused the disciples. It was a profanation of the sabbath, they said; to gather the ears and rub them in the hands was equivalent to reaping and threshing; and that was forbidden on pain of death.

2. The Lord"s answer. They insisted on their traditions; he referred them to the Scriptures.

(1) They condemned the disciples; but David, their great saint and hero, had eaten the shewbread when he and his men were hungry. The disciples had transgressed the Law only by implication; David had done so directly. The sufficient excuse in both cases was the same hunger. The Law of God is merciful; it does not forbid works of necessity on the sabbath day.

(2) Again, every sabbath day the priests changed the shewbread, and offered double sacrifices; yet they were blameless. The strict rules of sabbath observance were set aside for the sake of the temple service. But there was One greater than the temple, One who was himself, in the highest sense of the word, the true Temple of God, for "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." His disciples, hungry while in attendance on their Lord, were as guiltless as the priests engaged in their temple duties.

3. The error of the Pharisees. It was the common error of formalists and hypocrites. They cared more for the letter of the Law than for the spirit, more for the outward ordinance than for the spiritual principle which is embodied in the ordinance. The Lord refers them again to that deep saying of the Prophet Hosea, which he had already quoted, (Mat_9:13) when they blamed him for eating with publicans and sinners. Then he bade them go and learn its spiritual meaning. They had not done so; they were as ignorant as ever; well read in the letter of the Scriptures, but utterly ignorant of those great and holy truths which are often bidden from the wise and prudent, but by the grace of God revealed unto babes. They transposed the Divine order of things; they put the letter above the spirit, outward forms above the inner worship of the heart, sacrifice above mercy. They came to Christ, but it was to vex and persecute him, to mis-interpret his words, to find opportunity to kill him; not to learn those holy lessons which he teaches to his true disciples. Guilty themselves, they condemned the guiltless. Mercy is better than sacrifice. Sacrifice is good, but mercy is better. It is good to observe all the outward ordinances of religion; they are precious helps, ordained of God. But they cease to be good if we forget that they are only helps; if we trust in them while we break the higher law of charity. To condemn the guiltless is a grievous sin; to speak evil of our neighbours, especially of those who are following Christ in sincerity, though they may perhaps differ from us in many things, is a crime in the sight of God. To come to God"s house with uncharitable intentions, to spy, to find fault, to misrepresent, is the sin of the Pharisees, for which the Lord rebuked them.

4. The Lord"s authority. The Son of man, he said, is Lord even of the sabbath day. The Pharisees exalted the sabbath in a way which destroyed its real meaning. The sabbath was made for man; for his spiritual necessities; for rest from worldly labour, that he might give himself to worship and to the care of his soul. The salvation of man was of infinitely greater importance than the outward observance of the sabbath. That was the great end; the sabbath was one of the appointed means; it was made for man, not man for the sabbath. The Son of man, the Representative of humanity, the Son of God, who had become the Son of man for man"s peace and salvation, was, Lord of the sabbath. He might put aside the traditions of the Pharisees, their rigorous formalisms, for the sake of suffering humanity. He is Lord over the ordinances of the sabbath day. Those ordinances belonged to the ceremonial law; they were a shadow of things to come, (Col_2:16, Col_2:17) a preparatory discipline. "In this," says Stier, "Christ has shown himself to be Lord of the sabbath for his Church, for the new humanity in him; that he has changed the day from the end of the old-world week, which passed away for ever with the still sabbath of his grave, to the beginning, with which an entirely new state of things commenced; and thus has made the day peculiarly his own, the Lord"s day, and has united to the remembrance of the first creation, whose sabbath was broken and rendered servile by sin, the praise of the new creation, effected by him who became a Son of man for man"s sake.

II WORKS OF MERCY.

1. The question of the Pharisees. Another sabbath had come, (Luk_6:6) and the Lord, as he was wont, attended the synagogue-worship. It was their synagogue; those very men who had been dogging his steps, who had so lately accused his disciples, were its rulers and eiders. The Lord was not like some men nowadays, who absent themselves from church because they have, or fancy they have, some quarrel with the minister. The church is the house of God; we go there to worship God. No earthly motives should be allowed to keep us from it, or to influence our thoughts when we are there. In the congregation on that day was a man with a withered hand; it hung useless by his side. The Pharisees pointed him out to Christ, not in sympathy for the poor man, but in hatred of the Lord. Their hearts were full of malice. In the very house of God, on the sabbath which they affected to vindicate, they sought to ensnare to his destruction One who had done nought but good. "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?" they asked him, seeking not instruction, but an opportunity of accusing the holy Saviour. Blinded as they were by their malice, they did not understand that no profanation of the sabbath is worse in the sight of God than evil thoughts, malicious designs; no crime could be darker than to try to compass the death of One most holy, most merciful, and the among sacred associations, on the day which God had hallowed.

2. The answer. The Lord answers, as he did so often, one question by another. Would they not save a sheep from danger on the sabbath day? and if a sheep, how much more a man? He lifts the question at once into a higher sphere. He will not argue it on the basis of mere formalism; he will not dispute, as it seems the Jews did afterwards, whether the sheep might be lifted from the pit, or only helped to get out by means of planks. He goes at once to the principle, "It is lawful to do well on the sabbath days." Not to do good. when it lies in our power is to do evil, (Mar_3:4) therefore it is not only lawful, but sometimes it is our bounden duty to do works of mercy on the sabbath day.

3. The miracle. The Lord was grieved, St. Mark tells us, with the hardness of their hearts. He looked round about on them with anger. It was anger against the sin, grief for the sinners. He would have saved those scribes and Pharisees; he would have won their hearts. But they were stiffened into hardness by their miserable formalism; they would not come to him that they might have life. He was grieved. He is grieved when we sin grieved for us, for our folly, for our danger. He looked round about on them with anger. He does so now when men cherish evil thoughts in the house of God. He is present; he reads the secrets of the hearts. Oh, what a scene would there be if the hearts of a congregation were open to the eyes of men, as they are open to the searching eye of Christ! But there was a work of mercy to be done. "He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth." He believed the word of the Lord; he willed to stretch forth the withered hand. The muscles, helpless before, obeyed the mandate of the will; his hand was restored whole, like as the other. So if we, in trustful faith, will to come after Christ, he will give us strength to stretch forth the hand, to take up the daily cross of self denial, and to follow him. The strength is his, he giveth it; he asks us only for faith. "Only believe," he saith; "all things are possible to him that believeth.

4. Its effect upon the Pharisees. "They were filled with madness," St. Luke says; (Luk_6:11) the Greek word means rather "wicked folly"; (see Bishop Ellicott, on 2Ti_3:9) and they took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. He had shamed them, he had put them to silence; and yet he had done nothing which could be made a ground of accusation against him. There is no wrath fiercer than that of baffled malice. The Lord"s anger was righteous, mingled with grief. Theirs was impious, Satanic; for the hatred of goodness is the very character of the evil one. They were blinded by this angry and wicked stupidity to such a degree that they joined with the Herodians, the party to which they were diametrically opposed, to compass the death of Christ. Worldly and wicked men hate goodness; it is a reproach to them. The contrast makes their character appear all the darker; they will combine against it, and lay aside for a time their jealousies and enmities to effect its downfall. But the Lord reigneth.

LESSONS.

1. Remember that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life; do not exalt the letter above the spirit.

2. Fear to profane God"s holy day by unholy thoughts and words; he seeth the heart.

3. Believe in his Word; stretch forth the hand of faith; he giveth strength.

HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER Vers. 1-8. (see also Mar_2:23-28 Luk_6:1-5) The sabbath made for man.

Note in introduction that the chiefest interest of this passage centres in the last verses of it, and in their combined moral aspects. The occasion of these must be esteemed, with certain other passages of the Gospel, as one of no lesser import, recorded as it is by all of the three evangelists. That occasion arose not out of the direct course and tenor of the conduct of Christ, but out of that of his disciples. Nevertheless, his own use of the sabbath day for works of mercy originates more than once the similar sharp criticism of his shallow enemies. The conduct in question of the disciples, natural enough on the very face of it, might have been more easily open to exception if the sabbath day had been habitually found to confer some exemption from the experience of hunger. By the very dictate of nature we should be content to justify it, which proclaims everywhere so much universal love, free hospitality. But beside this, the permission was specially accorded to the Jew, (Deu_23:25) and something more also, viz. the free appropriation for the occasion of the clusters of grapes. The objection of the captious critics now, however, concerned the point that the disciples took of these ears of corn on the sabbath, which still removes their inconsistency only one step further. For was there any qualifying addendum to the permissions quoted above, such e.g. that men should not walk through the fields at all on the sabbath, or if they did that they must beware of the corn-field and vineyard, and though they hungered, must on that day bear their hunger? No, but "this and many other like things they had put in their traditions." It was equally a sign of their presumption and of the alienation of their heart from the true Word of God. Christ, therefore, not arguing in any detail, but instancing two well-known precedents, (1Sa_21:1-7 1Sa_22:22) concludes the matter by the clearest statement of the true principle on which the observance of the sabbath was ever to proceed it "is made for man, and not man for" it. Any man and every man is to use that sabbath that certainly was made for him," and he is to use it intelligently and to the best of his light, and he is so far in one sense only appointed to be lord over it, while none the less he stands or falls to his Lord on the question how he uses it. Much more, therefore, must the Son of man be Lord also of the sabbath day." Notice

I A GREAT HISTORIC CHANGE. Few enough men now come near the edge of the snare of supposing that they "were made for the sabbath." They triumph too loudly and too self-confidently in the help they themselves, perhaps, have given to the explosion of that heresy. May we not easily and truthfully imagine that if the moral majesty of Christ"s presence were again amongst us, his gaze and his emphatic accents would all go to say, "The sabbath was made for man; have you forgotten that? Divinely suggested for man, divinely exampled for man; have you forgotten this? Man is not its lord and sovereign disposer in the sense you are practically interpreting it"? How does the world in its sad history pitch from one extreme of error to the opposite!

II THE PRIOR GREAT HISTORIC FACT. That the "sabbath was made for man" is not, indeed, a revelation of things to come, but it is the pronounced and authoritative revelation of a great reality in this world"s creation and design. Consider it by the aid of the light of a few contrasts and comparisons. What things are made for man! How divinely made! What wealth of possession, of beauty, of thought! What powers of body, the mere shadows and servants of richer and more wonderful faculties of mind! What lamps are hung up in the heavens; what seasons are made for man, and months, and days, and nights! Amidst them all, Christ says another thing, less evident, very likely, to sense, but not less real, "was made for man the sabbath? Strange, indeed, would it be that Christ should use so emphatic a sentence, without one hint of any waning importance of the day, if he and the force of his truth were about to assign it a lower standard, or to put altogether an end to it! The very first mention of it, as the day on which God ended his creative work how striking it is] "On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made." That majestic history is unaccompanied by any precept or command that it should be observed by men. Nor is it wonderful, when it is remembered that it is descriptive of a time when there was but one man in the world. But from that time forward, for many a century, there is not to be found one distinct and explicit reference to the "sabbath day" till the reference to it as placed in the ten commandments. Thence its checkered history for ages varied much with that of the one nation to whom it was expressly appointed, and it may safely be said about it that it was not most faithfully kept, or most profitably and in the spirit, when it was most scrupulously talked about. Once, then, "God hallowed and sanctified it," surely not for himself; then when it appears again on the surface of the sacred page it is emphatically introduced as a day to be "remembered," and not as though it were now new and unknown hitherto; and now in the bold and most authoritative language of the text, so universal in its scope and idea, it is said, "The sabbath was made for man." In another brief but solemn spell of time the day became the first day of the week instead of the seventh, when Christ"s resurrection gave the signal. And in due time the first converted Roman emperor, Constantine, made it the legalized day for his wide dominions; and all the world has followed suit an amazing, overwhelming indication that it was not he alone who did it! The day is one of those gifts specially entitled to the language of St. Paul, "a gift of God without repentance. " It came with the sacred voice of God; it was revived to the favoured people to whom belonged the oracles; it rose from a long oppressed and discredited state with the appearance of the most intense new motives of religious feeling and principle and devotion; it still holds its own in the very whirlpool of worldliness, and amid the most constant and subtle undermining of the unbelieving; and it vindicates in deed what Jesus here says of it by word, it was made for man.

III THE GRAND HISTORIC SWEEP SO CONFESSED TO OF ITS PRICELESS USEFULNESS. With such an Author, and with such nativity, it was well to be supposed that the use of the sabbath would be very comprehensive, and that it would win its way with the low on lower grounds even, with the high on the highest.

1. Of the millions careless to use it to highest gain, can there be found one willing or anxious to spare it for himself and for his own particular private purpose? All want what they think the gain of it! Who can count the advantage to man of even the inferior ends of the sabbath? For one day"s rest out of seven the tool does not rust, nor does its edge grow blunt; but he who uses it does renew his strength, does repair his lost energies, does refresh his spirit. Macaulay wrote of it, "That day is not lost while industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the furrow, while the Exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from the factory. A process is going on quite as important to the wealth of the nation as any process that is performing on more busy days. Man, the machine of machines, the machine compared with which the contrivances of the Wattses and the Arkwrights and the Bessemers are worthless, is repairing and winding up so that he returns to his labour on Monday with clearer intellect, with livelier spirit, and with renewed bodily vigour." It is not to be believed that the sabbath is a day out of which a growing world will grow, but one into which it will grow more and more, in this one direction to begin with only.

2. Its wide sweep of nobler use for the highest glory of man in the exercise of his faculty of worship; in meditation, faith in the Unseen, prayer, praise, and in the natural conditions of the growth of Christian love and brotherhood on earth. Few things can strike the devout as more really beautiful, impressive, or cheering than the vision of the faithful in church, as they present a sight so grandly distinct from any other. Every day of the week finds every one of us in different place, in different thought, in different work, in different attitude, different aspiration, and with all the varieties of character, age, position, and necessity pressing heavily on us, and sundering us even, however unwillingly; but this day the opposite! One place holds all, irrespective of every one of these differences. One God attracts us all. One Saviour"s love meets us all. One Holy Spirit"s energy draws, enlightens, cheers us all. We all have one thought, one hope, seek one heaven, sing one song, bow down together before the Unseen with one penitent confession. And however slowly, and therefore betimes discouragingly, the Church of Christ is restoring even now, and immensely by aid of the sabbath day, the unity of God"s great family of man so long, so sadly astray!

3. The sabbath day is mighty, indeed, in its very highest sweep of influence, when it is intelligently and devoutly used as the solemn and most grateful memorial of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, with all else that flows therefrom in strict relation to it the sacrament of his body anti blood, and the holy communion which comes of it. The coronal fact of Christianity is the resurrection fact. It shows no longer man"s hope sowed in the ground like a "corn of wheat," but appeared above ground, grown up some way, radiant with light and colour, full of promise, and the undoubted earnest of joy beyond all thought. For all such as are thus minded the day is stamped with highest and most reviving joy. It is "Morn of morns and day of days." It says, "Christ the Light of lights hath risen." The Church sings with one heart and tone, "Welcome, sweet day of rest!" And it deliberately says, while it muses with burning heart "Blest day of God, most calm, most bright, The first and best of days; The labourer"s rest, the saint"s delight, The day of joyful praise! "My Saviour"s face did make thee shine, His rising thee did raise; This made thee heavenly and Divine, Above the common days. B.

HOMILIES BY MARCUS DODS Vers. 1-13. The sabbath.

Six times was our Lord, either directly or through his disciples, charged with sabbath-breaking. In considering the manner in which he met the accusation, we must bear in mind that he was in a different relation to the Jewish sabbath from that which we hold to it. Indeed, we could not, from his observance of the day, argue that a day was to be similarly observed in the Christian Church, because many important observances ceased at his death, and remain to us only in their spiritual substance. But the principles he lays down in defending his conduct carry with them important conclusions regarding the day.

1. The first of these principles underlies all rational religion. It was not anew idea. Our Lord finds adequate expression of it in the Old Testament words, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." In other words, God is not pleased by our payment of dues to him, but by our growing in likeness to him and learning to love our brother. The worship that does not feed character is nought.

2. But the second principle has a special reference to the sabbath. It is little more than an inference from the first. "The Sou of man," he says, "is Lord even of the sabbath;" or, as he more plainly puts it in another Gospel, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." It is a day given to us by God, who has so arranged things that the world"s work can be done completely by giving six-sevenths of our time to it. The tendency of much of our civilization is to make men think that work or business is the whole of life. Such a tendency is checked and rebuked by this day. Every seventh day says to us, "You are not merely a merchant; you are a man. You are not in this world to manufacture material articles and accumulate money; you are here to cultivate friendships, to educate yourself in all that is good, to know God, and become meet for the inheritance of the saints in light." All this was explicitly taught when the sabbath was first promulgated to Israel. The remarkable words were uttered to them, "For that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days." This weekly rest was a new sensation to the over-driven slaves; it was a new idea to them to have one day all their own a day in which they were loosed from all the cares of earth, and taught to know themselves God"s children. This fourth commandment, which both our Lord and the Pharisees accepted, was interpreted by them to quite opposite meanings. The Pharisees took the letter of the law, regardless of its spirit and intention. The letter ran, "Thou shalt do no work;" and with the most perfect verbal logic the Pharisee maintained that he kept the law best who did least work. Our Lord, on the other hand, sought to find and satisfy the spirit of the law; and he said, "The day was made to promote men"s good; to be a pleasure and a boon, not a vexation and a burden." Whatever best promotes man"s good best satisfies the sabbath law. Whatever most effectually sets him free from the grinding toil and feverish cares of this life best satisfies the law. Starting, then, with this idea, that the day is meant to promote the good of man, we see why the one point insisted on in the commandment is that men should cease from their ordinary works. There is not a word about worship, no hint regarding the observance of the day further than this, that it is to be an exceptional day, a day of rest. But, the rest being provided by God, it follows that we must be in cordial and frank fellowship with him in availing ourselves of it. When a father brings his boy home for a holiday, he feels grieved anti disappointed if the boy obviously prefers the company of low and coarse lads to the company he finds in his father"s house. And how can a man be directed to the right observance of the seventh day who is at discord with his heavenly Father on the fundamental point of what constitutes true happiness and well-being? Two instances are cited by our Lord to illustrate his meaning.

I David did not scruple, in an extraordinary emergency, to fall back on the great principle that he himself, God"s living servant, was more precious than an ordinance made for his good. From this we derive two hints:

1. We see that the sabbath is not an idol to which man"s life or health is to be sacrificed. In all large cities there are thousands who from Monday morning till Saturday night breathe nothing but the most polluted atmosphere, and for such persons to confine themselves to their little room through the whole Sunday as well, seems to lean rather to the Pharisaic observance of the day.

2. But this instance carries with it no sanction of the conduct of any house it habitually for their mere bodily comfort and worldly gain. David ate the shewbread under pressure. He did it once in his lifetime. And so our Lord admits that resting was the ordinary, normal way to observe the day, and that whosoever dispenses with that must be able to show good cause.

II The second illustration is equally instructive. The ordinary work of the priests prevents them from keeping the command in the letter. They must care for the public worship. There are circumstances in which you may fairly be expected to give tap your day of rest out of deference to the necessities of society, of your employers, or of one another. Your business is to see that these necessities are real, and not fanciful.

But we are no longer under the Jewish Law; do any of the ideas expressed in it directly concern us? No doubt Paul sometimes speaks as if we were done with all distinctions of days, and had no need any longer of the Law, but could live entirely by the direction and impulse of the Spirit. But he sets before us the ideal of the Christian and Christianity; practically the attempt to live without the aids of sabbath observance commonly ends not in elevating all our days to the level of a well-spent sabbath, but in bringing down to a merely worldly level both our sabbaths and our week-days. If, then, we assert for ourselves our Lord"s liberty regarding this day, let us be sure we do so from his point of view. Let us not hesitate to prefer the real welfare of men to the claims of the sabbath. But let us be quite sure that we are at one with God in our judgment of what does constitute the welfare of ourselves and others. Seven weeks of leisure out of every year should surely leave behind some very visible traces of our willingness to be helpful in this world, where there is such room for wise and honest helpfulness. To spend such a day in formal attendance at church, in yawning idleness, in gossiping levity, is a scandal to our common humanity; and to spend it even in the pursuit of science, or in reading good secular literature, is to prove we do not yet know what are the capacities and contents of our nature. Make a duty of seriously considering your ways, your habits, your disposition; let your mind rest on the great gospel facts, seek your Lord"s presence and address him with the words your thoughts of him suggest, and you will learn how reasonable and fruitful an appointment it is that from all your ordinary works you should rest every seventh day. D.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-8. Ritual and morals.

The Pharisaic Jews are, in the previous chapter, upbraided for their obstinate impenitence. We find the same people here condemning the disciples of Christ as sabbath-breakers because they plucked ears of corn to satisfy their hunger. The manner in which Jesus defends his disciples shows

I THAT RITUAL IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR MORALS.

1. The Pharisees were stringent ritualists.

(1) Their formality was seen in their dress. In their observance of ceremonies. In their scrupulous tithing of mint and anise and cummin.

(2) The ritual of sabbath observance in like manner they zealously respected. So far did they carry this, that they refused to defend themselves in the wars with Antiochus Epiphanes and the Romans on the sabbath. It was through this superstition that Pompey was enabled to take Jerusalem.

(3) The ritual of sabbath observance with them was intensified by the interpretations of the elders. Thus reaping was admitted to be a servile work; and so was threshing. But according to the rabbins plucking ears of corn was "a kind of reaping," and rubbing them in their hands was "a kind of threshing.

2. But they were lax in morals.

(1) It is common for men of corrupt minds to attempt to atone for the looseness of their morals by zeal for the outward services of religion. So the Pharisees "made void the commandment of God through their traditions." While they scrupulously paid tithe upon trifles, they "neglected the weightier matters of the Law judgment, mercy, and truth.

(2) So in their zeal for the externals of sabbath observance they missed its spirit of worship. They failed to see that the sabbath is truly observed in its spirit, which is the spirit of heaven, mercy and love, justice and truth.

(3) This spirit they violated in the harshness of their judgment. In condemning the action of the hungry disciples they would sacrifice mercy to ceremony.

3. They inverted the order of God.

(1) The cud of the Law is love.

(2) Ritual is instituted as a means to that end.

(3) When ritual interferes with love it must give place. Hence when the law of commandments contained in ordinances ceased to point men to Christ the Saviour of sinners, it was abrogated as a useless burden.

II THAT RITUAL MAY GIVE WAY TO NECESSITY.

1. This principle was sanctioned by David.

(1) Necessity was with him a sufficient reason for setting aside the letter of the law relating to the shewbread. (cf. Lev_10:10 Lev_24:5-9 1Sa_21:1-6)

(2) Note: This action of David was parabolic. The shewbread is admitted to have been a type of Christ, who appears in the presence of God for the nourishment and life of the spiritual priesthood. Since part of the frankincense put in the bread was burnt on the altar for a memorial, the merit of the sacrifice of Christ is represented. The hunger of David and his men constituted their particular claim to set forth the verity that those who hunger after righteousness are the persons to be satisfied with the goodness of God"s house. (cf. 1Pe_2:5 Rev_1:6 Rev_5:10 Rev_20:6)

2. This principle was sanctioned by Moses.

(1) For his Law requires the profaning of the sabbath by the priests in the temple. They were required to prepare the sacrifices, offer them, and attend to the other services of the temple on the sabbath as on common days. (see Exo_29:38 Num_28:9)

(2) This legislation interprets the words, "Thou shalt not do any work," in the fourth commandment, to mean secular work, or work for personal pleasure or temporal advantage. The works done about the holy things in the temple were scarcely "service;" for they were done unto the Lord.

(3) The argument from the temple was conclusive against the Pharisees, whose traditions invested the sabbath law with excessive stringency.

3. This principle was sanctioned by the prophets.

(1) In their practice. For they set aside the Levitical rule that all sacrifices should be offered at the door of the tabernacle or temple, as when Elijah offered his sacrifice upon Carmel. In this he had the high sanction of Heaven.

(2) In their precept. An example is here cited from Hosea, who declares that God prefers mercy to sacrifice. (cf. Hos_6:6 Mic_6:6-8)

(3) The Lord prefers mercy through the sacrifice of Christ to the sacrifice of the sinner in the coming day of vengeance. (see Zep_1:7, 8 Eze_39:17, 18 Rev_19:17)

4. This principle is sanctioned by Christ.

(1) The hungry disciples had the sanction of Christ for plucking, the corn and rubbing it in their hands upon the sabbath day. He did not reprove them. On the contrary, he defended them.

(2) He defended them not only upon the authority of David, of Moses, and the prophets; but upon his own authority, which he asserted to be Divine. This was the meaning of his declaration, "I say unto you, That in this place is One greater than the temple." For the rabbins acknowledged none but God to be greater than the temple. (cf. Gal_3:1 Mar_14:58-64 Heb_3:3) He asserted his Divinity in claiming to be the Lord of the sabbath. (see Gen_2:3) As the sabbath yielded to the temple, and the temple to Christ, so must the sabbath also yield to Christ. (see Joh_7:21-23)

(3) Jesus, who claims to be "Lord of the sabbath day," appears to have exercised his prerogative in changing it from the seventh to the first day, and hence the first day is now distinguished as "the Lord"s day". (see Rev_1:10)

(4) The Lordship of the Son of man is the Lordship of mercy. Those who are engaged in the service of Jesus Christ enjoy greater liberty than those who were engaged in the service of the temple. The gospel is in all things superior to the Law.

III THAT NECESSITY CANNOT BE PLEADED AGAINST MORALS.

1. There is no good precedent to sanction it.

(1) When our Lord sanctioned the plucking of the ears of corn in the field, he did not sanction theft under the plea of necessity. The Law sanctioned this liberty. (see Deu_23:24, Deu_23:25) The permission was intended to teach humanity and kindness.

(2) Our Lord"s defence of his disciples in relation to the question of the sabbath did not touch the moral obligation of the institution, which is the devotion of our time to the worship and service of God. The spirit of the sabbath should be in the week.

(3) The change of the day brings into it the motives of the resurrection and the ascension of the Lord, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we are in spirit brought nearer to the rest of heaven.

2. Morals are themselves the highest necessity.

(1) They are a spiritual necessity. As the spirit is superior to the body, so is a spiritual necessity more important than a bodily necessity.

(2) They are a universal necessity. The needs of an individual must give way to those of a community. The interests of all the worlds cannot be sacrificed or compromised to suit individual urgency.

(3) They are an eternal necessity. They are founded in the nature of the everlasting God. They belong to the immortal soul. The law of the ages cannot be set aside to meet the necessity of a moment.

(4) A man is not forsaken of God because he is in want. The disciples may suffer hunger in the very presence of Jesus. It is more honourable to want in fellowship with Christ than to abound in fellowship with the world. Jesus knows how to lead his hungry disciples through the corn-fields. J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

His disciples plucked the ears of corn, and ate - Just what sufficed for present necessity: dried corn was a common food among the Jews. Mark ii, 23; Luke vi, 1.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

sabbath

(1) The sabbath ("cessation") appears in Scripture as the day of God’s rest in the finished work of creation. Gen 2:2; Gen 2:3. For 2500 years of human life absolutely no mention is made of it. Then the sabbath was revealed; Exo 16:23; Neh 9:13; Neh 9:14 made a part of the law Exo 20:8-11 and invested with the character of a "sign" between Jehovah and Israel, and a perpetual reminder to Israel of their separation to God Exo 31:13-17. It was observed by complete rest Exo 35:2; Exo 35:3 and by Jehovah’s express order a man was put to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Num 15:32-36. Apart from maintaining the continued burnt-offering Num 28:9, and its connection with the annual feasts; Exo 12:16; Lev 23:3; Lev 23:8; Num 28:25 the seventh day sabbath was never made a day of sacrifice, worship, or any manner of religious service. It was simply and only a day of complete rest for man and beast, a humane provision for man’s needs. In Christ’s words, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." Mar 2:27.

(2) Our Lord found the observance of the day encrusted with rabbinical evasions Mat 12:2 and restrictions, wholly unknown to the law, so that He was Himself held to be a sabbath breaker by the religious authorities of the time. The sabbath will be again observed during the kingdom age Isa 66:23.

(3) The Christian first day perpetuates in the dispensation of grace the principle that one-seventh of the time is especially sacred, but in all other respects is in contrast with the sabbath. One is the seventh day, the other the first. The sabbath commemorates God’s creation rest, the first day Christ’s resurrection. On the seventh day God rested, on the first day Christ was ceaselessly active. The sabbath commemorates a finished creation, the first day a finished redemption. The sabbath was a day of legal obligation, the first day one of voluntary worship and service. The sabbath is mentioned in the Acts only in connection with the Jews, and in the rest of the N.T. but twice. Col 2:16; Heb 4:4. In these passages the seventh day sabbath is explained to be to the Christian not a day to be observed, but a type of the present rest into which he enters when "he also ceases from his own works" and trusts Christ.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Lord of the Sabbath.

The hungry disciples:

v. 1. At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn, and His disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

While Jesus was engaged in the work of His ministry in Galilee, He came into conflict with the Sabbath observance of the Pharisees. His disciples, who accompanied Him on His walk, became hungry. Now they were on a path leading through a field of grain, which was ready for harvest. "These paths are often exceedingly rough. They were never surveyed and never repaired. They were simply devoted to public use by immemorial custom. If a landowner wished to raise grain in a field through which one of these paths ran, he plowed up to the very edge of the narrow path and put in his seed. There were neither fences nor ditches to separate the road from the field. Fields traversed by such roads are still very common in Palestine. It was along such a road that Jesus and the disciples were traveling when they plucked the ears of wheat on the Sabbath. " Note: The Law permitted a hungry man to pluck ears from the field of another, in order to still the pangs of his hunger, Deu 23:25. But this was on a Sabbath, or, as Luke says, on the second Sabbath after the first, Luk 6:1, that is, the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover, when the sheaf of first-fruits was offered, Lev 23:10-11; for in this way, and from this day, did the Jews reckon the time until the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost. Hardly, however, had the disciples begun to pluck ears when fault was found.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, The poor estate and low condition of Christ’s own disciples in this world; they wanted bread, and are forced to pluck the ears of corn to satisfy their hunger. God sometimes suffers his dearest children in this world to fall in to straits, and to taste of want, for the trial of their faith, and dependance upon his power and providence.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XXXVIII. Jesus Defends Disciples].

XXXVIII. JESUS DEFENDS DISCIPLES WHO PLUCK GRAIN ON THE SABBATH. (Probably while on the way from Jerusalem to Galilee.) aMATT. XII. 1-8; bMARK II. 23-28; cLUKE VI. 1-5.

b23 And c1 Now it came to pass a1 At that season bthat he aJesus went bwas going on the ca bsabbath day through the grainfields; aand his disciples were hungry and began bas they went, to pluck the ears. aand to eat, cand his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. [This lesson fits in chronological order with the last, if the Bethesda events took place at Passover. The paschal lamb was eaten on the fourteenth Nisan, or about the first of April. Clark fixes the exact date as the 29th of March, in A. D. 28, which is the beginning of the harvest season. Barley ripens in the Jordan valley about the 1st of April, but on the uplands it is reaped as late as May. Wheat ripens from one to three weeks later than barley, and upland wheat (and Palestine has many [209] mountain plateaus) is often harvested in June. If Scaliger is right, as most critics think he is, in fixing this sabbath as the first after the Passover, it is probable that it was barley which the disciples ate. Barley bread was and is a common food, and it is common to chew the grains of both it and wheat.] c2 But b24 And ccertain of the Pharisees awhen they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. bwhy do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? cWhy do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day? [The Pharisees did not object to the act of taking the grain. Such plucking of the grain was allowed by the law ( Deu_23:25) and is still practiced by hungry travelers in Palestine, which is, and has always been, an unfenced land, the roads, or rather narrow paths, of which lead through the grainfields, so that the grain is in easy reach of the passer-by. The Pharisees objected to the plucking of grain because they considered it a kind of reaping, and therefore working on the sabbath day. The scene shows the sinlessness of Jesus in strong light. Every slightest act of his was submitted to a microscopic scrutiny.] a3 But b25 And cJesus answering them asaid unto them, Have ye not read bDid ye never read ceven this [There is a touch of irony here. The Pharisees prided themselves upon their knowledge of Scriptures, but they had not read (so as to understand them) even its most common incidents], what David did, bwhen he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, cand took and ate the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat awhich it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only csave for the priests alone? [Jesus here refers to the incident recorded at 1Sa_21:1-6. Ahimelech and Abiathar have been confused by transcribers. It should read Ahimelech. However, we are not referred to the actions of Abiathar, but to those of [210] David. He went with his followers to the tabernacle at Nob near Jerusalem, and being hungry, asked bread of the priests. There was no bread at hand save the showbread. This bread was called showbread because it was "set out" or "exhibited" before Jehovah. It consisted of twelve loaves, which were baked upon the sabbath, and were placed, hot, in two rows upon the showbread table every sabbath day. The twelve old loaves which were then removed were to be eaten by the priests and no one else ( Lev_24:5-9). It was these twelve old loaves which were given to David ( 1Sa_21:6). Since the showbread was baked on the sabbath, the law itself ordered work on that day. The vast majority of commentators look upon this passage as teaching that necessity abrogates what they are pleased to call the ceremonial laws of God. Disregarding the so-called ceremonial laws of God is a very dangerous business, as is witnessed by the case of Uzzah ( 2Sa_6:6, 2Sa_6:7), and Uzziah ( 2Ch_26:16-23). Christ never did it, and strenuously warned those who followed the example of the scribes and Pharisees in teaching such a doctrine ( Mat_5:17-20). The law of necessity was not urged by him as a justifiable excuse for making bread during the forty days' fast of the temptation. Life is not higher than law. "All that a man hath will he give for his life," is Satan's doctrine, not Christ's ( Job_2:4). The real meaning, as we understand it, will be developed below in our treatment of Num_28:9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily [211] sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties. The profanation of the Sabbath, however, was not real, but merely apparent. Jesus cites this priestly work to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not universal, and hence might not include what the disciples had done. The fourth commandment did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded.] 6 But I say [asserting his own authority] unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. [The word "greater" is in the neuter gender, and the literal meaning is therefore "a greater thing than the temple." The contrast may be between the service of the temple and the service of Christ, or it may be a contrast between the divinity, sacredness, or divine atmosphere which hallowed the temple, and the divinity or Godhead of Christ. But, however we take it, the meaning is ultimately a contrast between Christ and the temple, similar to the contrast between himself and Solomon, etc. ( Mat_12:41, Mat_12:42). It was a startling saying as it fell on Jewish ears, for to them the temple at Jerusalem was the place honored by the very Shekinah of the unseen God, and the only place of effective worship and atonement. If the temple service justified the priests in working upon the Sabbath day, much more did the service of Jesus, who was not only the God of the temple, but was himself the true temple, of which the other was merely the symbol, justify these disciples in doing that which was not legally, but merely traditionally, unlawful. Jesus here indirectly anticipates the priesthood of his disciples-- 1Pe_2:5.] 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. [This passage is quoted from Hos_6:6, and is reiterated at Mat_9:13. It is an assertion of the superiority of inward life over outward form, for the form is nothing if the heart is wrong. The saying is first suggested by David himself ( Psa_51:16, Psa_51:17), [212] after which it is stated by Hosea and amplified by Paul ( 1Co_13:3). The quotation has a double reference both to David and the disciples as above indicated. Having given the incident in the life of David, Jesus passes on from it without comment, that he may lay down by another example the principle which justified it. This principle we have just treated, and we may state it thus: A higher law, where it conflicts with a lower one, suspends or limits the lower one at the point of conflict. Thus the higher laws of worship in the temple suspended the lower law of sabbath observance, and thus also the higher law of mercy suspended the lower law as to the showbread when David took it and mercifully gave it to his hungry followers, and when God in mercy permitted this to be done. And thus, had they done what was otherwise unlawful, the disciples would have been justified in eating by the higher law of Christ's service. And thus also would Christ have been justified in permitting them to eat by the law of mercy, which was superior to that which rendered the seventh day to God as a sacrifice.] 8 For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath. b27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 so that the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. [The expression "Son of man" is used eighty-eight times in the New Testament, and always means the Messiah, and not man generally. The Sabbath was made for man's convenience and blessing, and so Jesus, who was complete and perfect manhood, was Lord of it. But men who were incomplete and imperfect in their manhood, can not trust their fallible judgment to tamper with it. Though the day was made for man, this fact would not entitle man to use it contrary to the laws under which it was granted. As Lord of the day Jesus had a right to interpret it and to apply it, and to substitute the Lord's day for it. In asserting his Lordship over it, Jesus takes the question outside the range of argument and brings it within the range of authority.] [213]

[FFG 209-213]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Matthew Chapter 12

At length the rejection of the nation, in consequence of their contempt of the Lord, is plainly shewn, as well as the cessation of all His relations with them as such, in order to bring out on God’s part an entirely different system, that is to say, the kingdom in a particular form. Thus this last chapter is the great turning-point of the whole history. Christ is a divine witness to Himself, and John Baptist has so to receive Him, as another would. He stood no longer as Messiah witnessed to, but as Son of God, but gives His full testimony to John. But the nation had rejected God manifested in warnings and grace alike: only there was a remnant. Wisdom was justified of her children. Then comes His submission to His rejection, evil as it might be, as the Father’s will; but this leads Him out into the consciousness of His personal glory, the real ground of that rejection. All things were delivered to Him of His Father. None could know Him, nor any the Father unless He revealed Him. The whole world, tested by His perfection, was found lying in wickedness (though with a spared remnant), but man was universally away from God. He looked down from heaven to see, as we read, but they were all gone out of the way, none righteous, no, not one. So Jesus, as He walked on the sea, stood alone in a judged world, judged by His rejection, but now in the sovereign grace of the Father, as the Son revealing Him, and calling to the revelation of this grace in Himself. This is just now the new position. He had tried man. The very thing that He was, hindered their receiving Him. Now he that was weary must come to Him who stood thus alone, and He would give them rest. They must learn of Him who thus had absolutely submitted, and they would have rest as to the world and everything here. So with us: where we wholly bow, we come into the conscious possession of our privileges as disowned, on the heavenly and higher ground.

The first circumstance that brought forward the question of His Person, and of His right to close the dispensation, was the disciples’ plucking the ears of corn and crushing them in their hands to satisfy their hunger. For this the Pharisees rebuke them, because it was on a Sabbath day. Jesus sets before them that the king, rejected by the malice of Saul, had partaken of that which was only given to the priests. The Son of David, in a similar case, might well enjoy a similar privilege. Besides God was acting in grace. The priest also profaned the Sabbath in the service of the temple; and One greater than the temple was there. Moreover, if they had really known the mind of God, if they had been imbued with the Spirit which His word declared to be acceptable to Him-”I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” they would not have condemned the guiltless. In addition to this, the Son of man was Lord even of the Sabbath. Here He no longer takes the title of Messiah, but that of Son of man-a name which bore witness to a new order of things, and to a more extended power. Now that which He said had great significance; for the Sabbath was the token of the covenant between Jehovah and the nation (Eze 20:12-20); and the Son of man was declaring His power over it. If that was touched, it was all over with the covenant.

The same question arises in the synagogue; and the Lord persists in acting in grace, and in doing good, shewing them that they would do the same for one of their sheep. This only excites their hatred, great as was the proof of His beneficent power. They were children of the murderer. Jesus withdraws from them, and great multitudes follow Him. He heals them, charging them not to make Him known. In all this however His doings were but the fulfilment of a prophecy which clearly traces out the Lord’s position at this time. The hour would come when He should bring forth judgment unto victory. Meanwhile He retained the position of entire lowliness, in which grace and truth could commend themselves to those who appreciated and needed them. But in the exercise of this grace, and in His testimony to the truth, He would do nothing to falsify this character, or so to attract the attention of men as to prevent His true work, or which could make it even suspected that He sought His own honour. Nevertheless the Spirit of Jehovah was upon Him as His beloved, in whom His soul delighted; and He should declare judgment to the Gentiles, and they should put their trust in His name. The application of this prophecy to Jesus at that moment is very evident. We see how guarded He was with the Jews, abstaining from the gratification of their carnal desires respecting Himself, and content to be in the background, if God His Father was glorified; and glorifying Him perfectly Himself on the earth by doing good. He was soon to be declared to the Gentiles; whether by the execution of the judgment of God, or by presenting Himself to them as the One in whom they should trust.

This passage is manifestly placed here by the Holy Ghost, in order to give the exact representation of His position, before laying open the new scenes which His rejection prepares for us.

He then casts out a devil from a man who was blind and dumb-a sad condition, truly depicting that of the people with respect to God. The multitude, full of admiration, exclaim, “Is not this the Son of David?” But the religionists, on hearing it, jealous of the Lord, and hostile to the testimony of God, declare that Jesus wrought this miracle by the power of Beelzebub, thus sealing their own condition, and putting themselves under the definitive judgment of God. Jesus demonstrates the absurdity of what they had said. Satan would not destroy his own kingdom. Their own children, who had the pretension to do the same, should judge their iniquity. But if not the power of Satan (and the Pharisees admitted that the devils were really cast out), it was the finger of God, and the kingdom of God was among them.

He who had come into the strong man’s house to spoil his goods had first to bind him.

The truth is that the presence of Jesus put everything to the test; everything on God’s part was centred in Him. It is Emmanuel Himself who was there. He who was not with Him was against Him. He who did not gather with Him scattered. Everything now depended on Him alone. He would bear with all unbelief as to His own Person. Grace could remove that. He could pardon all sin; but to speak against and blaspheme the Holy Ghost (that is, to acknowledge the exercise of a power, which is that of God, and to attribute it to Satan) could not be pardoned; for the Pharisees admitted that the devil was cast out, and it was only with malice, with open-eyed deliberate hatred to God, that they attributed it to Satan. And what pardon could there be for this? There was none either in the age of the law [32] or in that of the Messiah. The fate of those who thus acted was decided. This the Lord would have them understand. The fruit proved the nature of the tree. It was essentially bad. They were a generation of vipers. John had told them the same. Their words condemned them. Upon this the scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign. This was nothing but wickedness. They had had signs enough. It was only stirring up the unbelief of the rest.

This request gives the Lord occasion to pronounce the judgment of this generation.

There should be only the sign of Jonah for this evil generation. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so should the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. But then lo! Christ was already rejected.

The Ninevites by their conduct should condemn this generation in the day of judgment, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and a greater than Jonah was here. The queen of the south likewise testified against the wickedness of this perverse generation. Her heart attracted by the report of Solomon’s wisdom, had led her to him from the uttermost parts of the earth; and a greater than Solomon was here. Poor ignorant Gentiles understood the wisdom of God in His word, whether by the prophet or the king, better than His beloved people, even when the Great King and Prophet was among them.

This was then His judgment: the unclean spirit (of idolatry) which had gone out of the people, finding no rest away from Israel (alas! its true house, whereas they ought to have been the house of God), should return with seven spirits worse than itself. They would find the house empty, swept, and garnished; and the last state should be worse than the first. What a solemn judgment of the people was this-that those among whom Jehovah had walked should become the habitation of an unclean spirit, of a superabundance of unclean spirits; not merely of seven, the complete number, but together with these (who would incite them all to madness against God and those who honoured God, thus leading them to their own destruction) that other unclean spirit also, who would draw them back into the wretched idolatry from which they had escaped! Israel’s judgment was pronounced.

In conclusion Jesus publicly breaks the bonds that naturally existed between Himself and the people after the flesh, acknowledging those only which were formed by the word of God, and manifested by doing the will of His Father which was in heaven. Those persons only would He acknowledge as His relations, who were formed after the pattern of the sermon on the Mount.

His actions and His words after this bear witness to the new work which He was really doing on the earth. He leaves (chap. 13) the house and sits beside the lake. He takes a new position outside, to proclaim to the multitude that which was His true work. A sower went forth to sow.

Footnotes for Matthew Chapter 12

32: Take notice of this expression. We see the manner in which the Holy Ghost passes on from the time then present to the Jews, which would soon end, to the time when the Messiah would set up His kingdom, their “world [age] to come.” We have a position outside all this, during the suspension of the public establishment of the kingdom. The apostles even did but preach or announce it; they did not establish it. Their miracles were “the powers of the age to come” (compare 1Pe 1:11-13). This, as we shall see by-and-by, is of great importance. Thus also with regard to the new covenant, of which Paul was the minister; and yet he did not establish it with Judah and Israel.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. At that time. Compare Mark 2:23–28 and Luke 6:1. About the time when grain begins to ripen in Judea, that is, not far from the first of May. Walked through the corn fields. Wheat or barley, for which the general word, “corn,” was used. When maize was discovered by the Europeans in America they called it “Indian corn,” because it was a food grain like wheat, rye and barley. We now apply to it exclusively the designation of “corn.” The paths, the only roads, led and still lead through the grain fields in Palestine. Began to pluck. Permitted by Moses (Deut. 23:25).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This is the beginning of a new part of the story where Matthew tells of growing opposition to Jesus' ministry. Here, the Pharisees criticize his disciples for picking grain on the Sabbath.

At that time

This marks a new part of the story. AT: "A little later"

grainfields

a place to plant grain. If wheat is unknown and "grain" is too general, then you can use "fields of the plant they made bread from." (See: Translate Unknowns)

pluck heads of grain and eat them ... do what is unlawful to do on the Sabbath

Picking grain in others' fields and eating it was not considered stealing. The question was whether one could do this otherwise lawful activity on the Sabbath.

to pluck heads of grain and eat them

"to pick some of the wheat and eat it" or "to pick some of the grain and eat it"

heads of grain

This is the topmost part of the wheat plant. It holds the mature grain or seeds of the plant.

the Pharisees

This does not mean all of the Pharisees. AT: "some Pharisees"

See, your disciples

"Look, your disciples." The Pharisees use this word to draw attention to what the disciples are doing.

translationWords

Jesus

Sabbath

grain

disciple

Pharisee

lawful

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1–13. THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH

1. The disciples pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath. 2. A man with a withered hand cured on the Sabbath.

Mar 2:23-28; Mar 3:1-5; Luk 6:1-11

1. ἐπορεύθη. St Luke has the less classical ἐγένετο διαπορεύεσθαι.

τοῖς σάββασιν. For the form as if from a sing. σάββας -ατος see Winer 73. τὸ σάββατον and τὰ σάββατα, whether in singular or plural, mean (1) the sabbath, ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ, Luk 6:7. ὄψε δὲ σαββάτων, Mat 28:1. (2) The week, πρώτη σαββἀτου, Mar 16:9. εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, Mat 28:1.

ἐπείνασαν. A late form for ἐπείνησαν. So πεινᾶν and πεινᾷ for Attic πεινῆν and πεινῇ.

ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας. The Pharisees, who seem to have been watching their opportunity, make the objection as soon as the disciples began what by Pharisaic rules was an unlawful act.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Time [καιρω] . Rev., season. The word implies a particular time; as related to some event, a convenient, appropriate time; absolutely, a particular point of time, or a particular season, like spring or winter.

Corn [σποριμων] . From speirw, to sow. Properly, as Rev., corn - fields.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.