Matthew 12:5

Mat 12:5-6. Have ye not read in the law, &c. — He does not mean that the words following were to be found in the law, but only that they might read in the law, how the priests were obliged, on the sabbath days, to perform such servile work in the temple as, considered separately from the end of it, would have been a profanation of the sabbath, but really was not so, because it was necessary to the public worship of God, on account of which the sabbath was instituted. If it be asked what servile work the priests performed on the sabbath, the answer is obvious. On that day, as well as on other days, they made up the fires, killed, flayed, and dressed the sacrifices, and performed other pieces of manual labour necessary to the religious service which God had established among them. Nay, besides the continual burnt offering, the priests were obliged, on the sabbaths, to sacrifice two lambs extraordinary, by which their servile work was that day double of what it was on the other days of the week. See Num 28:9. But in this place is one greater than the temple — As if he had said, “If you reply that the priests were not culpable in those actions, because they were undertaken for the temple service, I acknowledge it; but at the same time I must observe, that if the temple, with its service, is of such importance as to merit a particular dispensation from the law of the sabbath, I and my disciples, whose business of promoting the salvation of men is a matter of more importance, may, on that account, with more reason take the same liberty in a case of the like necessity. According to this interpretation, the reading μειζον, a greater work, instead of μειζων, a greater person, which is authorized by many manuscripts, will have a peculiar elegance. Then the sense will be, ‘There is here a much more noble work carrying on than the temple service.’” — Macknight.

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

12:5-6 Priests worked on the Sabbath (Lev 24:8-9; Num 28:9-10), and this was not offensive to Pharisees. If the priests’ work for the Temple on the Sabbath is allowed, then certainly Jesus can do the same because he is greater than the Temple (see Matt 4:23; 9:35; 11:2-6, 20-30).

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

Mat 12:5. Ἢ, or? Lat. an?)—ἐν τῷ νόμῳ,[551] in the Law) He proceeds step by step to a more stringent argument, from the example of the Prince, which the priest had approved, to the Law itself; from the prophets, even the earlier, parts of whom were read, to the Law, all of which was read; and from the sacred food to the sacred day, concerning which the dispute arose.—οἱ ἱερεῖς, the priests) who ought especially to maintain the law, yet in this matter are especially excepted. Thus also, the priests of Christ are less bound to the Sabbath than the remaining multitude.—ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, in the temple) Whilst they are employed in sacred rites.—βεβηλοῦσι, profane) (verb); the adjective βέβηλον, profane, is opposed to ἅγιον, sacred, nor does it always imply impurity or guilt.—See Lev 10:10, and 1Sa 21:4.

[551] At that very time of year Leviticus was being read on the Sabbaths, the book in which there occur so many precepts as to sacrifices, which were required to be performed even on the Sabbath.—V. g.

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

Mat_12:5. Ἀνέγνωτε] Num_28:9.

βεβηλοῦσι] that is, if one were consistently to judge according to your precepts, which forbid every sort of work on the Sabbath as being a desecration of that day. For βεβηλ., profanant, comp. Act_24:6, and see Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 558.

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 12:5 . his reference to the priests naturally leads on to the second instance taken from their systematic breach of the technical Sabbath law in the discharge of sacerdotal duty. ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε , have ye not read? not of course the statement following, but directions on which such a construction could be put, as in Num 28:9 , concerning the burnt offering of two lambs. They had read often enough, but had not understood. As Euthy. Zig. remarks, Jesus reproaches them for their vain labour, as not understanding what they read ( μὴ ἐπιγινώσκουσιν ἃ ἀναγινώσκουσι ). βεβηλοῦσι , profane, on the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath law, as an absolute prohibition of work. Perhaps the Pharisees themselves used this word as a technical term, applicable even to permissible Sabbath labour. So Schanz after Schöttgen.

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

When the Priests do God’s service upon the Sabbath day, yet they break not the Law: much less doth the Lord of the Sabbath break the Sabbath.

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

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath--by doing "servile work."

and are blameless?--The double offerings required on the sabbath day (Num 28:9) could not be presented, and the new-baked showbread (Lev 24:5; Ch1 9:32) could not be prepared and presented every sabbath morning, without a good deal of servile work on the part of the priests; not to speak of circumcision, which, when the child's eighth day happened to fall on a sabbath, had to be performed by the priests on that day. (See on Joh 7:22-23).

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 5. The priests - profane the Sabbath] Profane, i.e. put it to what might be called a common use, by slaying and offering up sacrifices, and by doing the services of the temple, as on common days, Ex 29:38; Nu 28:9.

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

(5) The priests in the temple profane the sabbath.—The work of the priests, as described, e.g., in Num_28:9, viz., slaying victims, placing the shewbread, involved an amount of labour which, in work of any other kind, would have broken the Sabbath rest; yet no one blamed the priests, for they were serving in the Temple of Jehovah.

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

5. the priests in the temple profane the sabbath] by labour in removing the shewbread, preparing fire for the sacrifice, and performing the whole temple service. “Not merely does the sacred history relate exceptional instances of necessity, but the Law itself ordains labour on the Sabbath as a duty” (Stier).

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.

Or have ye not read in the law,.... Num 28:9 by which law the priests were obliged, every sabbath day, to offer up two lambs for a burnt offering; to which were annexed many servile works, as killing the sacrifice, flaying it, cutting it in pieces, and laying it on the altar, cutting of wood, and putting that in order, and kindling the fire: from all which, it might be observed,

how that on the sabbath days, the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless. There were many things, which, according to the Jewish canons, the priests might do on the sabbath day; particularly they might slay the sacrifice: it was a rule with them, , "that slaying drives away the sabbath" (u). They might also knead, make, and bake the showbread on the sabbath day: their general rule was, as R. Akiba says, that what was possible to be done on the evening of the sabbath, did not drive away the sabbath; but what was not possible to be done on the sabbath eve, did drive away the sabbath (w): so they might kill the passover, sprinkle its blood, wipe its inwards, and burn the fat on the sabbath day (x), with many other things. What exculpated these men was, that what they did was done in the temple, and for the service of it, upon which an emphasis is put; and agrees with their canons, which say, that there is no prohibition in the sanctuary; , "that which is forbidden to be done on the sabbath, is lawful to be done in the sanctuary" (y): and whereas, it might be objected to the disciples of Christ, that they were not priests; and what they did was not in the temple, but in the fields; to this it is replied, in the following words:

(u) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 72. 2. (w) Misn. Menachot, c. 11. sect. 3. (x) Misn. Pesachim, c. 6. sect. 1. Maimon. Pesach. c. 1. sect. 18. (y) lb. sect. 16. & Hilchot Sabbat, c. 21. sect. 27.

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

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Ver. 5. Profane the Sabbath] As ye count profaning of it: or they profane it by divine dispensation, while they do servile works in slaying sacrifices, and other things tending to the service of God, such as is now the ringing of the sermon bell among us, as among the Protestants in France the letting off of a harquebus {a} or pistol, whereby they congregate.

{a} The early type of portable gun, varying in size from a small cannon to a musket, which on account of its weight was, when used in the field, supported upon a tripod, trestle, or other ‘carriage’, and afterwards upon a forked ‘rest’. The name in German and Flemish meant literally ‘hook-gun’, from the hook cast along with the piece, by which it was fastened to the ‘carriage’; but the name became generic for portable fire-arms generally in the 16th century, so that the type with the hook was subsequently distinguished as arquebuse à croc. ŒD

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.

Break the sabbath; i.e. they do that, which if the divine worship did not require, would not be allowed on the sabbath, as the work they do, of its own nature, is servile.

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).

Neither Mark nor Luke have this argument of our Saviour’s. The meaning is, all acts of servile labour are not unlawful on the sabbath day. The priests, according to the law, Num 28:9, offer sacrifices, and do many other acts, such as circumcising, and many other things, which in your sense would be a profanation of the sabbath; yet you do not blame them, neither are they to he blamed, because God permitted and directed them.

If any say, "But how doth this agree to what our Saviour is speaking to?"

Answer: The disciples of Christ were employed with and by him in going about and preaching the gospel, and what they now did was but in order to fit them for his work, when they had not had such leisure as others beforehand to provide: and this establisheth a second rule, That works of piety, and tending to fit us for acts of piety, that cannot conveniently be done before, are lawful on the sabbath day.

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

5. The priests in the temple profane the sabbath — They perform what, on the reasoning of the Pharisees, would be profanation. The priests on that day killed, flayed, and dressed and burned the sacrifice, and baked the showbread. So that the law of itself made provision for its own profanation, as the Jews of the Saviour’s time construed law.

It appears from the passage in 1 Samuel xxi, that it was fresh bread which David ate. But by the law (Lev_24:8) the fresh bread was set on the table on the Sabbath. Hence, Alford infers that our Lord might have drawn a double argument from David’s case in regard to the Sabbath.

There is something striking in the remark that Jesus, who was king and priest of the new dispensation, draws his justifying example from a king and the priests of the old dispensation.

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

Matthew only. Or. A second example, if the first does not convince you. Have ye not read in the Law. Beyond which there is no appeal. Jewish authors often appeal to Scripture in the order of Hagiographs, Prophets, and, last of all, Law. He here refers to Lev_24:8, (cf. also 1Ch_9:32) but Bengel"s suggestive remark that Leviticus was read in the services at that very time of year is vitiated by the double uncertainty, first, what time of year it really was; and secondly, what is the antiquity of the present custom of reading the whole Law every year (cf. Dr. Lumby on Acts 13., "Add. Note"). According to the express orders of the Law, the priests put in fresh shewbread on the sabbath day. How that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple. The word of wider import is used (ieron , not skhnh), because the Law still holds good. Profane the sabbath. If their work is regarded in itself, as the action of my disciples is now regarded. And are blameless? (guiltless, Revised Version, as also the Authorized Version in ver. 7); i.e. in the eyes of the Law. This you will all grant (cf. Schurer, II 2:103). Lightfoot"s ("Her. Hebr.") attractive quotation from Maimonides in "Pesachim," 1. (i.e. "Hilkoth Korban Pesach," "There is no sabbatism at all in the temple," appears to rest on a misunderstanding.

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

The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath - That is, do their ordinary work on this, as on a common day, cleansing all things, and preparing the sacrifices. A greater than the temple - If therefore the Sabbath must give way to the temple, much more must it give way to me.

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

5. The priests … profane the sabbath. The Sabbath was the busiest day of the week for the priests in the temple service. In this they rightly broke the ordinary Sabbath law, because the temple service set aside the law. Compare John 7:22, 23.

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.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to respond to the Pharisees.

Have you not read in the law that ... but are guiltless?

Jesus uses a question to respond to the criticism of the Pharisees. Jesus is challenging them to think about the meaning of what they have read in the scriptures. AT: "Surely you have read in the law of Moses that ... but are guiltless." or "You should know that the law teaches that ... but are guiltless." (See: Rhetorical Question)

profane the Sabbath

"do on the Sabbath what they would do on any other day"

are guiltless

"God will not punish them" or "God does not consider them guilty"

I say to you

This adds emphasis to what Jesus says next.

one greater than the temple

"someone who is more important than the temple." Jesus was referring to himself as the one greater. (See: First, Second, or Third Person)

translationWords

law

Sabbath

temple

profane

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

5. ἀνέγνωτε. For the aor. see ch. Mat 5:21 and Mat 11:27.

βεβηλοῦσιν. By labour in removing the shewbread, preparing fire for the sacrifice, and performing the whole temple service. ‘Not merely does the sacred history relate exceptional instances of necessity, but the Law itself ordains labour on the Sabbath as a duty’ (Stier).

βεβηλοῦσιν. The verb is late. βέβηλος (βάω, βαίνω, βηλός, ‘a threshold’) lit. = ‘allowable for all to tread,’ so common, profane.

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.

5.] The priests were ordered to offer double offerings on the Sabbath (Num 28:9, Num 28:10), and to place fresh (hot, and therefore baked that day) shewbread. In performing these commands they must commit many of what the Pharisees would call profanations of the Sabbath. So that, as Stier (2:4), not only does the sacred history furnish examples of exception to the law of the Sabbath from necessity, but the Law itself ordains work to be done on the Sabbath as a duty.

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

(L) 5. The second point in Christ’s answer in Mk. is the statement that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” with the inference that “the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” It is clear that this last statement in the form given by Mk. does not very well suit the context. It is the disciples who were blamed, not Christ Himself. Very possibly ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is a mistranslation for “man.” This would give the required justification of the disciples. The Sabbath was made to subserve man’s need, therefore man is lord of the Sabbath, and may use it as need requires, working upon it if necessary. But Mk.’s καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς may be a hint that he has added here words spoken on the occasion of some other Sabbath dispute, when Christ Himself was attacked, and the ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου would be in place. Mt. omits the words καὶ ἔλεγεν—διὰ τὸ σάββατον, and substitutes a second appeal to the Old Testament. Just as it furnished a precedent for the breaking of religious regulations in case of necessity, so it also sanctioned the overruling of general laws (in this case the prohibition of work on the Sabbath) in particular cases. The editor then adds an appeal to the general tenor of the Old Testament witness, as illustrated in Hos 6:6, and ends with Mar 2:28. The argument in these verses is not easy to follow. The action of the disciples is in no sense parallel to that of the priests in the temple; nor could the fact that the priests obeyed the injunctions of the law, by working on the Sabbath, justify the disciples for disobeying the scribal expositions of the law which prohibited work on the Sabbath. The appeal to Hos 6:6 is more suitable in such a context as 9:13, where the editor has again inserted it, than it is here.

It seems probable, therefore, that the editor here, as elsewhere, adds to a particular incident sayings spoken on other similar occasions. He is also, probably, influenced here by the difficulty of the present text of Mk vv. 27-28. “The Sabbath was made for man—so that the son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,” seems to have no bearing upon the disciples and their plucking the ears of corn. If ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is a mistranslation for “man,” the saying becomes pertinent, “Man is lord of the Sabbath.” That justifies the action of the disciples. But “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” seems to be no true inference from the preceding clause, nor to have any bearing upon the action complained of. The editor, therefore, omits “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” and, losing sight of the incident of the disciples and the ears, adds a saying in which Christ on some other occasion justified His own action in working on the Sabbath. The priests in the temple work on the Sabbath. That is to say, the sanctity of the temple overrides Sabbath regulations. But the Messiah is greater than the temple. Much more, therefore, can He dispense Sabbath rules. For the Son of Man ( = the Messiah) is, in virtue of His personality, Lord of the Sabbath.

(L) 5. Or did you not read in the law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are without guilt?]ἐν τῷ νόμῳ] Cf. Num 28:9, Num 28:10.—βεβηλοῦσιν] i.e. by performing the actions necessary to the offering of the sacrifices.

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