Matthew 12:2

Mat 12:2-4. The Pharisees said, Thy disciples do what is not lawful — The law of Moses so expressly allowed the plucking ears of corn as one passed through a field, that, malignant as they were, they pretended not to find fault with the action itself, (see Deu 23:25,) but they were perverse enough to think this to be a kind of reaping and dressing the grain, which was indeed forbidden on the sabbath. But he said — Have ye not read what, in a case of like necessity, David did, and his followers? and his necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. How he entered into the house of God — Into the tabernacle: the temple not being yet built. The meaning cannot be, that David himself went into the very tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither: but it was into the house or chamber of the high-priest that he entered, situated beside the tabernacle, and called the house of God on that account. See note on 1Sa 21:3-6. Thus the apartment in which the High-priest Eli and his servant Samuel slept, is called the house of the Lord, 1Sa 3:15. And did eat the show-bread — Gr. τους αρτους της προθεσεως, the bread of exhibition, or, the bread set forth. The Hebrew expression,

לחם פנים, is literally, the bread of the face, or, of the presence, so called, because it stood continually before the face, (so to speak,) of Jehovah; that is, before the ark, where God was peculiarly present. It consisted of twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, and was set every sabbath day, by the priest who served that week, on the golden table that was in the holy place of the tabernacle or temple. When the new loaves were brought, the stale ones were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. See notes on Exo 25:30; Lev 24:6-9.

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

Mat 12:2. Ἰδοὺ, κ.τ.λ., behold, etc.) They mean to say, “The Master ought to be accountable for what the disciples do in His very presence.” Behold! They wish Him to issue an immediate prohibition.—ὁ οὐκ ἔξεστι, that which is not lawful) They do not put the matter doubtfully, and they are therefore rebuked severely in Mat 12:3; Mat 12:5; Mat 12:7. The proposition [may be put either affirmatively or negatively], “It is lawful,” or “It is not lawful.” A false reproof was more common at that time, than a true one is now.—ποιεῖν, to do) referring not to the eating, but the plucking.—ἐν σαββάτῳ, on a Sabbath) The subject of the Sabbath occupies great part of the Evangelic history.

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

Mat 12:2 . ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν π . ε . σαββάτῳ . The emphasis here lies on the last word. To help oneself, when hungry, with the hand was humanely allowed in the Deuteronomic law (Deu 23:25 ), only to use the sickle was forbidden as involving waste. But according to the scribes what was lawful on other days was unlawful on Sabbath, because plucking ears was reaping . “Metens Sabbato vel tantillum, reus est” (Lightfoot rendering a passage from the Talmud). Luke adds ψώχοντες , rubbing with the hands. He took the offence to be threshing . Microscopic offence in either case, proving primâ facie malice in the fault-finders. But honest objection is not inconceivable to one who remembers the interdict placed by old Scottish piety on the use of the razor on Sabbath. We must be just even to Pharisees.

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

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day--The act itself was expressly permitted (Deu 23:25). But as being "servile work," which was prohibited on the sabbath day, it was regarded as sinful.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 2. Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do] The Jews were so superstitious, concerning the observance of the Sabbath, that in their wars with Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Romans, they thought it a crime even to attempt to defend themselves on the Sabbath: when their enemies observed this, they deterred their operations to that day. It was through this, that Pompey was enabled to take Jerusalem. Dion. Cass. lib. xxxvi.

Those who know not the spirit and design of the divine law are often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety. An intolerant and censorious spirit in religion is one of the greatest curses a man can well fall under.

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

(2) When the Pharisees saw it.—In the position in which the narrative stands in the other two Gospels, the Pharisees would appear as belonging to the company that had come down from Jerusalem to watch and accuse the new Teacher (Luk_5:17). He claimed the power to forgive sins, He ate and drank with publicans and sinners. Now they found that He was teaching men to dishonour the Sabbath, as He had already taught them in Jerusalem (Joh_5:10; Joh_5:16).

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

2. that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day] This prohibition is a Pharisaic rule not found in the Mosaic Law. It was a principle with the Pharisees to extend the provisions of the Law and make minute regulations over and beyond what Moses commanded, in order to avoid the possibility of transgression. To pluck ears of corn was in a sense, the Pharisees said, to reap, and to reap on the Sabbath day was forbidden and punishable by death. These regulations did in fact make void the Law; e. g. the result of this particular prohibition was to contravene the intention or motive of the Sabbath. If sabbatical observances prevented men satisfying hunger, the Sabbath was no longer a blessing but an injury to man.

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.

But when the Pharisees saw it,.... Who went along with him, or followed him, being employed to make observation on his words and actions,

they said unto him; Luke says, "unto them", the disciples: it seems, they took notice of this action both to Christ and his disciples, and first spoke of it to the one, and then to the other, or to both together:

behold thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day! they mention it with astonishment, and indignation. What they refer to, is not their walking on the sabbath day: this they might do, according to their canons, provided they did not exceed two thousand cubits, which were a sabbath day's journey (f) nor was it their passing through the corn fields; though, according to them (g),

"it was not lawful for a man to visit his gardens, "or his fields", on the sabbath day, to see what they want, or how the fruits grow; for such walking is to do his own pleasure.''

But this they knew was not the case of Christ, and his disciples, who were not proprietors of these fields: nor was it merely their plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing and eating them, which were not their own, but another man's; for this, according to the law, in Deu 23:25 was lawful to be done: but what offended the Pharisees was, that it was done on a sabbath day, it being, as they interpret it, a servile work, and all one as reaping; though, in the law just mentioned, it is manifestly distinguished from it. Their rule is (h).

"he that reaps (on the sabbath day) ever so little, is guilty (of stoning), , and "plucking of ears of corn is a derivative of reaping";''

and is all one as its primitive, and punishable with the same kind of death, if done presumptuously: so Philo the Jew observes (i), that the rest of the sabbath not only reached to men, bond and free, and to beasts, but even to trees, and plants; and that ' , "it was not lawful to cut a plant, or branch, or so much as a leaf", on a sabbath day: and it may be what might make this offence of the disciples the more heinous was, that they plucked these ears, and ate them, and so broke their fast before morning prayer; for a man might not eat any thing on a sabbath day until morning prayers were ended in the synagogue, nor indeed on any other day; for they used not to eat bread till after they had offered the daily sacrifice, which was about the third hour of the day, or nine o'clock in the morning; nor did they eat till the fourth hour, or ten o'clock (k).

(f) Ib. c. 27. sect. 1. (g) R. Moses Kotzensis Mitzvot Tora prec. neg. 65. (h) Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 8. sect. 3. & 7. 1. (i) De Vita Mosis, 1. 2. p. 657. (k) Vid. Targum in Eccl. x. 17. Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 6. sect. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

Ver. 2. Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful] This was as the proverb is, Sus Minervam, a pig is Minerva, when blind Pharisees will be teaching Christ how the Sabbath is to be sanctified. Not Hebrews only, but also Greeks and barbarians rested from work on the seventh day: witness Josephus, Clement Alexander, and Eusebius. Howbeit, to the Hebrews at Mount Sinai, God, for a special favour, made known his holy Sabbath, Neh 9:14, commanding them to do no servile work therein, Lev 23:7-8. This excludes not works of piety, charity, and necessity, such as was this of the disciples in the text. The Jews in their superstition would not fight on the Sabbath, and therefore lost their chief city to the Romans, under the command of Pompey, who took the advantage of the day to do his utmost then against them. {a} In later times they grew more rigid in this point: for on the Sabbath they would not spit, ease nature, get out of an outhouse, if by mishap they had fallen into it, as that Jew of Tewkesbury. This ever was and is the guise of hypocrites, to strain at gnats and swallow camels. Witness our modern Pharisees, the monks and Jesuits, who stumble at straws and leap over mountains. Their schoolmen determined that it was a less crime to kill a thousand men than for a poor man to mend his shoe on the Sabbath day. {b}

{a} Romani quoties dies huiusmodi rediissent fortissime percutiebant.

{b} Levius esse crimen mille homines iugulare, quam semel die Dominico pauperi calceum consuere. Pareus in loc.

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.

Upon the Sabbath day - The Pharisees, doubtless desirous of finding fault with Christ, said that in plucking the grain on the “Sabbath day” they had violated the commandment. Moses had commanded the Hebrews to abstain from all servile work on the Sabbath, Exo 20:10; Exo 35:2-3; Num 15:32-36. On any other day this would have been clearly lawful, for it was permitted, Deu 23:25.

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

That which is not lawful to do on the sabbath-days. The Pharisees blame not the disciples for plucking the ears of corn, as they passed by, (this being allowed, Deuteronomy xxiii. 25.) but for doing it on a sabbath-day, as if it had been a breach of the sabbath. (Witham) --- Behold, &c. The Pharisees here mildly rebuke our Lord; but afterwards, when he restored the withered hand, they rose up against him with such rage, that they formed upon the spot designs of killing him, as in ver. 14. When there is nothing great or sublime, they are more quiet, but when with his word only he restores health to the infirm, like furious beasts, they grow enraged. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. xl.)

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).

So saith Mark, Mar 2:24, only he puts it into the form of a question. Luke adds nothing, Luk 6:2, but saith, certain of the Pharisees. They granted the thing lawful to be done another day, but not on the sabbath day. How blind is superstition, that they could think that it was contrary to the will of God, that his people should fit themselves for the service of the sabbath by a moderate refreshment! Some of the Pharisees ordinarily attended Christ’s motions, not to be instructed by him, but (as is afterward said) that they might have something whereof to accuse him. What a little thing do they carp at! Wherein was the sin? The plucking of a few ears of corn, and rubbing them, could hardly be called servile labour, especially not in the sense of the commandment, which restrained not necessary labour, but such labour as took them off from the duties of the sabbath; but their tradition had made this unlawful, as it was a little reaping and a kind of threshing. Hypocrites and formalists are always most zealous for little things in the law, or for their own additaments to it.

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

2. Not lawful… upon the sabbath day — The crime was not the walking, for they may not have walked more than a Sabbath day’s journey; but the plucking and the rubbing. Now this was done to satisfy actual hunger, and doubtless was their only obtainable food. It was truly, therefore, hardly more than to put one’s hands to the food upon a table. It may therefore be considered a striking instance in which the Jews had come to pervert the divine law in an over particularity about the letter.

2. The decalogue, which is of perpetual validity, commands the observance of one day in seven as Sabbath or rest, (for rest is the meaning of the word Sabbath,) but lays down no unchangeable law as to the particular day.

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

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him. The Revised Version (but the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him) retains the simple order of the Greek, which more vividly represents the Pharisees as a party opposed to him. Behold. They suggest that he had not noticed it. Were the disciples behind him? (cf. Mat_8:23) Thy disciples. Notice that all the accusations brought against the disciples in this Gospel concern food: Mat_9:14, as regards abstaining from it upon fixed days; Mat_15:2, as regards eating it without taking extreme precautions against ceremonial pollution; in the present passage, as regards avoiding any profanation of the sabbath for its sake. Do. At this moment. That which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day (ver. 1, note).

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Ver. 2. Rigidity in sabbath rules.

That which the disciples did was not regarded as a wrong thing in their day. Thomson tells us that, when travelling in harvest-time, his muleteers plucked off the ears of corn, rubbed them in their hands, and ate the grains, just as the apostles did. And this was quite allowable; it was never thought of as stealing. The Pharisees did not object to the thing that was done, but to the infringement of their stiff rule, that this particular act should not be done on the sabbath, because it amounted to doing work on the sabbath day. Divine laws can gain adjustments and adaptations to fit to various conditions and circumstances; there is elasticity in their applications. Man-made laws are stiff and rigid; they scarcely permit exceptions; and require that men shall always adjust to them, and never expect law to adjust to meet their need. The Divine sabbath law is large, comprehensive, spiritual, and therefore searching. But it is elastic, and adjusts to man"s varying conditions; it does not expect men to force themselves to fit to it. Human sabbath rules were, in our Lord"s time, and are still, most vexations things yokes that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear. They required a woman to have no bow on her dress, unless it was sewn on, and so a part of the dress; for otherwise she would be carrying a bow. And these strange rules to-day permit a woman to use a pin on the Sunday, but refuse to allow her to use a needle. Sabbath never can be really kept on man-made rules. "In their bigoted reverence for the sabbath some of the Jews asserted that the day was first of all kept in heaven, and that the Jewish nation had been chosen for no other end than to preserve it holy upon earth." The extent to which they carried their scruples excites one"s ridicule and contempt.

I THE SABBATH AS A PRINCIPLE. It is well, in dealing with the sabbath, always to show first that it is a Divine arrangement for humanity, as such, and is not, in the first place, distinctively religious. For healthy life God provided the rest of night; for healthy work God provided the rest of the sabbath. But there is this important difference between them. The rest of night is compulsory; the seventh-day rest is voluntary. This at once brings in the element of principle and of religion. If a man is in the fear and love of God, as he should be, he will readily and cheerfully do what God suggests as well as what God commands.

II THE SABBATH AS A RULE. Voluntary things may not be done; then if God will not make certain things compulsory, men think they can do God service by fixing rules for their fellows, and so make them keep sabbath. And even good men cannot see that thus they take all the glory of the sabbath away. R.T.

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

The objection of the Pharisees:

v. 2. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.

The malicious faultfinders deliberately made a mountain out of a mole-hill and construed the action with their usual intolerance. The plucking to them became reaping, and the rubbing with the hands to remove the hulls in their eyes became threshing. There was no wrong done even from the standpoint of the strictest interpretation of the Jewish Law. But the Pharisees so construed it and took offense, incidentally accusing Christ as an accomplice for permitting the sacrilege. Christ’s answer:

v. 3. But He said unto them, Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him,

v. 4. how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

v. 5. Or have ye not read in the Law how on the Sabbath days the priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

Jesus had a most disconcerting way of quoting Scripture to His enemies, which usually resulted in their chagrin and shameful rout. He has two examples for them: David, in fleeing before the wrath of Saul, came to the sanctuary of the Lord at Nob, 1Sa 21:1-6, where Ahimelech, the priest, gave him the show-bread, the bread of the countenance of God, from the table in the Holy Place. These consecrated bread-cakes were to be eaten by the priests only, Lev 24:8-9, and yet David, the great model of Jewish piety, ate of this hallowed bread with his men. And again: The priests, in the regular discharge of their duties, in sacrificing the burnt offerings in the morning and evening services of the Sabbath day, were technically transgressing the Sabbath law, with its absolute prohibition of work, thus, if one would argue from the standpoint of the Pharisees, actually profaning the Sabbath.

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

Observe here, 1. The persons finding fault with this action of the disciples, the Pharisees; many of whom accompanied our Saviour, not out of any good intentions, but only with a design to cavil at, and quarrel with, everything that either Christ or is disciples said or did.

Observe, 2. The action which they found fault with: The disciples plucking off the ears of corn on the sabbath-day.

Where note, It is not theft which the disciples are accused of by the Pharisees! for to take, in our necessity, so much of our neighbour’s goods, as we may reasonably suppose that if he were present, and knew our circumstances, he would give us, is no theft: but it was a servile labour on the sabbath, in gathering the corn, that the Pharisees scrupled; plucking the ears was looked upon as a sort of reaping.

Learn thence, How zealous hypocrites are for the lesser things of the law, whilst they neglect the weightier; and how superstitiously addicted to the outward ceremonies, placing all holiness in the observation of them.

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

2. But the Pharisees saw it. See note on Matt. 3:7. Some of the sect were in attendance on the watch for a ground of accusation. Not lawful on the sabbath. They did not object to taking the ears of corn, but to gathering, rubbing out the grains of wheat in the hand, and eating them on the sabbath. To understand their position, it must be noticed that after the Law had said that the Jews were “to do no manner of work” on the Sabbath, the “Tradition of the Elders” had laid down thirty-nine principal prohibitions, which were ascribed to the authority of the Great Synagogue, and which were called abhoth, “fathers,” or chief rules. From these were deduced a vast multitude of toldoth, “descendants,” or derivative rules. Now, “reaping” and “threshing” on the Sabbath day were forbidden by abhoth; and by the toldoth it was asserted that plucking corn-ears was a kind of reaping, and rubbing them a kind of threshing. The vitality of these artificial notions among the Jews is extraordinary. Abarbanel relates that when, in 1492, the Jews were expelled from Spain, and were forbidden to enter the city of Fez lest they should cause a famine, they lived on grass; yet even in this state “religiously avoided the violation of their Sabbath by plucking the grass with their hands.” To avoid this they took the much more laborious method of groveling on their knees, and cropping it with their teeth. We give one more example of their Sabbath requirements. “If on the Sabbath a Jew put out a lamp from fear of the Gentiles, or robbers, or on account of an evil spirit, he was guiltless; if to save oil, he was guilty.”—Milman's Jews, Vol. 2, p. 480.

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.

2. ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ. This prohibition is a Pharisaic rule not found in the Mosaic Law. It was a principle with the Pharisees to extend the provisions of the Law and make minute regulations over and beyond what Moses commanded, in order to avoid the possibility of transgression. To pluck ears of corn was in a sense, the Pharisees said, to reap, and to reap on the Sabbath day was forbidden and punishable by death. These regulations did in fact make void the Law; e.g. the result of this particular prohibition was to contravene the intention or motive of the Sabbath. If sabbatical observances prevented men from satisfying hunger, the Sabbath was no longer a blessing but an injury to man.

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.

(M) 2. And the Pharisees saw it, and said to Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.] Mk has: “And the Pharisees were saying to Him, See ! Why do they on the Sabbath that which is not lawful?”]—οἱ δὲ] as often for Mk.’s καὶ οἱ.—ἰδόντες εἶπαν] for Mk.’s ἔλεγον. For the form εἶπα, see Blass, p. 45; Moulton, Class. Rev. 1901, p. 36.—ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταὶ σου] Mk. has simply ἰδέ—ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὑκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ] Mk. has: ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν. σάββατον is the Greek form of the Hebrew שַׁבָּת.

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

What is not lawful. "On any ordinary day this would have been lawful; but on the Sabbath it involved, according to the Rabbinic statutes, at least two sins, viz., plucking the ears, which was reaping, and rubbing them in their hands (Luk 6:1), which was sifting, grinding, or fanning. The Talmud says : 'In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered as sifting; if she rubs the heads of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side - adherencies, it is sifting out fruit; if she bruises the ears, it is grinding; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing'" (Edersheim, " Life and Times of Jesus ").

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