Matthew 12 commentary

MATTHEW 12 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields
on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and
began to pick some heads of grain and eat them.
BAR ES, "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.
CLARKE, "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.

“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, Lev_23:10, Lev_23:11. 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, Exo_12:16; Lev_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, (Lev_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, Deu_16:10. The true calculation
of the time between could not otherwise be retained, as to Sabbaths, but by numbering
thus: this is σαββατον 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 ‫פרוטוגמייא‬ ‫שבת‬ shebeth protogamiya, the Sabbath,
πρωτογαµιας, 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! - 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 honorable 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.
GILL,"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn,.... That
is, the corn fields, as the other evangelists express it. It being on a sabbath day, it is very
probable, that Christ and his disciples were going to some public place of worship, the
way to which lay through some fields of corn, which were now ripe: for Luke says, it was
on the "second sabbath after the first", or rather "the first sabbath after the second"; that
is, the first sabbath after the second day of the passover, when the sheaf of the first fruit
was offered, and harvest was begun.
And his disciples were an hungered; it being in the morning before they had broke
their fast; and this circumstance is mentioned to show the reason of the following action,
and to excuse it: at which the Pharisees were so much offended, and of which they
accused them, as having done what was very criminal:

and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat; Luke adds, "rubbing them in their
hands"; and so here in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, it is rendered, "they began
to rub": as they passed along, they plucked off the ears of corn, either barley or wheat,
and rubbed them in their hands, to get the grain clear of the husk, or beard, and eat
them; contenting themselves with such mean and unprepared food, when the Jews on
that day fed on the best of dainties (e).
HE RY, "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.
JAMISO , "Mat_12:1-8. Plucking corn ears on the Sabbath Day. ( = Mar_2:23-28;
Luk_6:1-5).
The season of the year when this occurred is determined by the event itself. Ripe corn
ears are found in the fields only just before harvest. The barley harvest seems clearly
intended here, at the close of our March and beginning of our April. It coincided with the
Passover season, as the wheat harvest with Pentecost. But in Luke (Luk_6:1) we have a
still more definite note of time, if we could be certain of the meaning of the peculiar term
which he employs to express it. “It came to pass (he says) on the sabbath, which was the
first-second,” for that is the proper rendering of the word, and not “the second sabbath
after the first,” as in our version. Of the various conjectures what this may mean, that of
Scaliger is the most approved, and, as we think, the freest from difficulty, namely, the
first sabbath after the second day of the Passover; that is, the first of the seven sabbaths
which were to be reckoned from the second day of the Passover, which was itself a
sabbath, until the next feast, the feast of Pentecost (Lev_23:15, Lev_23:16; Deu_16:9,
Deu_16:10) In this case, the day meant by the Evangelist is the first of those seven
sabbaths intervening between Passover and Pentecost. And if we are right in regarding
the “feast” mentioned in Joh_5:1 as a Passover, and consequently the second during our
Lord’s public ministry (see on Joh_5:1), this plucking of the ears of corn must have
occurred immediately after the scene and the discourse recorded in Joh_5:19-47, which,
doubtless, would induce our Lord to hasten His departure for the north, to avoid the
wrath of the Pharisees, which He had kindled at Jerusalem. Here, accordingly, we find
Him in the fields - on His way probably to Galilee.
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn — “the
cornfields” (Mar_2:23; Luk_6:1).
and his disciples were an hungered — not as one may be before his regular
meals; but evidently from shortness of provisions: for Jesus defends their plucking the
corn-ears and eating them on the plea of necessity.
and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat — “rubbing them in their hands”
(Luk_6:1).
HAWKER 1-8, ""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. (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. (3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did,
when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; (4) How he entered into the
house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither
for them which were with him, but only for the priests? (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? (6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (7)
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not
have condemned the guiltless. (8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."

I do not think it necessary to swell my Poor Man’s Commentary, with making
observations on whatever, is plain and obvious. Our Lord who is both the original
institutor, and Lord of the Sabbath, hath clearly shown, how mercy is to supersede mere
works of sacrifice. But if the Jews were so tenacious of the ordinary sanctity of the
sabbath, as to prohibit everything but what was indispensible; what would those men
have said, had they lived in the present hour, when reverence both for the sabbath, and
the Lord of the Sabbath, is so generally set aside. Ye people of God, in whose hearts the
fear of the Lord is! see to it that ye stand up, as Moses did in the gap, to turn away the
Lord’s wrath from what may be generally expected; the Lord avenging the breach of his
sabbaths. Jesus! be thou the very sabbath of my soul! See Mar_2:23.
CALVI ,".Jesus was walking on the Sabbath It was the design of the Evangelists,
in this history, to show partly what a malicious disposition the Pharisees had, and
partly how superstitiously they were attached to outward and slight matters, so as to
make holiness to consist in them entirely. They blame the disciples of Christ for
plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath, during their journey, when they were
pressed with hunger, as if, by so doing, they were violating the Sabbath. The
keeping of the Sabbath was, indeed, a holy thing, but not such a manner of keeping
it as they imagined, so that one could scarcely move a finger without making the
conscience to tremble. (76) It was hypocrisy, therefore, that made them so exact in
trifling matters, while they spared themselves in gross superstitions; as Christ
elsewhere upbraids them with
paying tithe of mint and anise, and neglecting the
important matters of the Law, (Matthew 23:23.)
It is the invariable practice of hypocrites to allow themselves liberty in matters of
the greatest consequence, and to pay close attention to ceremonial observances.
Another reason why they demand that outward rites should be more rigorously
observed is, that they wish to make their duty toward God to consist only in carnal
worship. But it was malevolence and envy, still more than superstition, that led them
to this act of censure; for towards others they would not have been equally stern. It
is proper for us to observe the feelings by which they were animated, lest any one
should be distressed by the fact, that the very Doctors of the Law were so hostile to
Christ.
LIGHTFOOT, "1. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn;
and his disciples were a hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
[At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn.] The time is
determined by Luke in these words, on the sabbath from the second-first.
I. Provision was made by the divine law, that the sheaf of firstfruits should be
offered on the second day of the Passover-week, Leviticus 23:10,11: On the morrow
after the sabbath the priest shall shake [orwave] it. ot on the morrow after the
ordinary sabbath of the week, but the morrow after the first day of the Passover

week, which was a sabbatic day, Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7. Hence the Seventy,
the morrow of the first day; the Chaldee, after the holy-day. The Rabbins Solomon
and Menachem, on the morrow after the first day of the Passover-feast: of which
mention had been made in the verses foregoing.
II. But now, from that second day of the Passover-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
Passover, 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 put in the sickle
into the standing corn. ow the offering of the first fruit loaves on the day of
Pentecost (Lev 23:15-17) did respect the giving of thanks for the finishing and
inning of 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 Passover-week; and hence
Pentecost is called the 'Feast of weeks' (Deut 16:10). The true calculation of the time
between could not otherwise be retained as to sabbaths, but by numbering thus:
This is the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover. This is the second
sabbath after that second day. And so of the rest. In the Jerusalem Talmud, the
word the sabbath of the first marriage, is a composition not very unlike.
When they numbered by days, and not by weeks, the calculation began on the day
of the sheaf: "A great number of certain scholars died between the Passover and
Pentecost, by reason of mutual respect not given to one another. There is a place
where it is said that they died fifteen days before Pentecost, that is, thirty-three days
after the sheaf."
At the end of the Midrash of Samuel which I have, it is thus concluded; "This work
was finished the three-and-thirtieth day after the sheaf."
III. Therefore by this word the second-first, added by St. Luke, is shown, first, that
this first sabbath was after the second day of the Passover; and so, according to the
order of evangelic history, either that very sabbath wherein the paralytic man was
healed at the pool of Bethesda, John 5, or the sabbath next after it. Secondly, that
these ears of corn plucked by the disciples were of barley: how far, alas! from those
dainties wherewith the Jews are wont to junket, not out of custom only, but out of
religion also! Hear their Gloss, savouring of the kitchen and the dish, upon that of
the prophet Isaiah, chapter 58:13: "'Thou shalt call the sabbath a delight':--It is
forbidden," say they, "to fast on the sabbath; but, on the contrary, men are bound
to delight themselves with meat and drink. For we must live more delicately on the
sabbath than on other days: and he is highly to be commended who provides the
most delicious junkets against that day. We must eat thrice on the sabbath, and all
men are to be admonished of it. And even the poor themselves who live on alms, let
them eat thrice on the sabbath. For he that feasts thrice on the sabbath shall be
delivered from the calamities of the Messias, from the judgment of hell, and from

the war of Gog and Magog." 'Whose god is their belly,' Philippians 3:19.
IV. But was the standing corn ripe at the feast of the Passover? I answer,
I. The seed-time of barley was presently after the middle of the month Marchesvan;
that is, about the beginning of our ovember: "He heard that the seed sown at the
first rain was destroyed by hail; he went and sowed at the second rain, &c.: and
when the seed of all others perished with the hail, his seed perished not." Upon
which words the Gloss writes thus; "The first rain was the seventeenth day of the
month Marchesvan; the second rain, the three-and-twentieth day of the same
month; and the third was in the beginning of the month Chisleu. When, therefore,
the rain came down, that which was sown at the first rain was now become
somewhat stiff, and so it was broken by the hail; but that which was sown at the
second rain, by reason of its tenderness, was not broken, &c. Therefore the barley
was sown at the coming in of the winter, and growing by the mildness of the
weather, in winter, when the Passover came in, it became ripe: so that from that
time (the sheaf being then offered) barley-harvest took its beginning.
2. But if, when the just time of the Passover was come, the barley were not ripe, the
intercalary month was added to that year, and they waited until it ripened: "For,
for three things they intercalated the year; for the equinox, for the new corn, and
for the fruit of the trees. For the elders of the Sanhedrim do compute and observe if
the vernal equinox will fall out on the sixteenth day of the month isan, or beyond
that; then they intercalate that year, and they make that isan the second Adar; so
that the Passover might happen at the time of new corn. Or if they observe that
there is no new corn, and that the trees sprouted not when they were wont to sprout,
then they intercalate the year," &c.
You have an example of this thing: "Rabban Gamaliel to the elders of the great
Sanhedrim, our brethren in Judea and Galilee, &c.; health. Be it known unto you,
that since the lambs are too young, and the doves are not fledged, and there is no
young corn, we have thought good to add thirty days to this year," &c.
[And his disciples were an hungered.] The custom of the nation, as yet, had held
them fasting; which suffered none, unless he were sick, to taste any thing on the
sabbath before the morning prayers of the synagogue were done. And on common
days also, and that in the afternoon, provision was made by the canons, "That none,
returning home from his work in the evening, either eat, or drink, or sleep, before
he had said his prayers in the synagogue."
Of the public or private ways that lay by the corn-fields, let him that is at leisure
read Peah, chapter 2.
BROADUS, "I. Matthew 12:1-8. The Disciples Pluck Ears Of Grain On The
Sabbath
Compare Mark 2:23-28, Luke 6:1-5. At that time (season), the same expression in

Greek as in Matthew 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 Matthew 3:1, and contrast Matthew 13:1) At
that period, viz., while Jesus was engaged in journeying about Galilee, teaching and
healing (see on "Matthew 4:23"and see on "Matthew 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. ow, it cannot have been that of John 2:13, after which Jesus tarried in
Judea, (John 3:22) with so extensive results of his ministry (John 4:1) as to require
at least several months. To place it just after the Passover of John 6:4, a year before
the crucifixion (Edersheim ch. 35), is to disregard altogether the order of Mark and
Luke, for this supposes that Mark 2:23 f. follows Mark 6:31 ff., and Luke 6:1 ff.
follows Luke 9:10 ff. But if we suppose the feast of John 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, (John 5:10) in both cases awakening a
desire to put him to death; (John 5:18, Matthew 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.
Through the corn (or, grain-fields), literally, through the sown (places), which
Tyndale and his followers rendered 'through the corn,' while in Mark 2:23 and
Luke 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 Mark 4:28, Acts 7:12, where
the Greek has the common word for 'wheat,' so translated by them all in Matthew
3:12, Matthew 13:25, and wherever else in ew Testament it occurs. In John 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' ( oyes, Bible
Un. Ver.) and 'wheat' in Mark 4:28, Acts 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, (Deuteronomy 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 Matthew 13:4); the same thing is seen in Palestine to-day.
Disciples, see on "Matthew 5:1". Began to pluck the ears of corn (grain), either
wheat or barley, probably the latter, if it was just after the Passover. Luke 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.
BARCLAY, "CRISIS (Matthew 12:1-50)
In Matthew 12:1-50 we read the history of a series of crucial events in the life of
Jesus. In every man's life there are decisive moments, times and events on which the
whole of his life hinges. This chapter presents us with the story of such a period in
the life of Jesus. In it we see the orthodox Jewish religious leaders of the day coming
to their final decision regarding Jesus--and that was rejection. It was not only
rejection in the sense that they would have nothing to do with him; it was rejection
in the sense that they came to the conclusion that nothing less than his complete
elimination would be enough.
Here in this chapter we see the first definite steps, the end of which could be nothing
other than the Cross. The characters are painted clear before us. On the one hand
there are the Scribes and the Pharisees, the representatives of orthodox religion. We
can see four stages in their increasing attitude of malignant hostility to Jesus.
(i) In Matthew 12:1-8, the story of how the disciples plucked the ears of corn on the
Sabbath day, we see growing suspicion. The Scribes and Pharisees regarded with
growing suspicion a teacher who was prepared to allow his followers to disregard
the minutia of the Sabbath Law. This was the kind of thing which could not be
allowed to spread unchecked.
(ii) In Matthew 12:9-14, the story of the healing of the man with the paralysed hand
on the Sabbath day, we see active and hostile investigation. It was not by chance that
the Scribes and Pharisees were in the synagogue on that Sabbath. Luke says they
were there to watch Jesus (Luke 6:7). From that time on Jesus would have to work
always under the malignant eye of the orthodox leaders. They would do his steps,
like private detectives, seeking the evidence on which they could level a charge
against him.
(iii) In Matthew 12:22-32, the story of how the orthodox leaders charged Jesus with
healing by the power of the devil, and of how he spoke to them of the sin which has
no forgiveness, we see the story of deliberate and prejudiced blindness. From that
time on nothing Jesus could ever do would be right in the eyes of these men. They
had so shut their eyes to God that they were completely incapable of ever seeing his
beauty and his truth. Their prejudiced blindness had launched them on a path from
which they were quite incapable of ever turning back.
(iv) In Matthew 12:14 we see evil determination. The orthodox were not now content
to watch and criticize; they were preparing to act. They had gone into council to
find a way to put an end to this disturbing Galilaean. Suspicion, investigation,
blindness were on the way to open action.
In face of all this the answer of Jesus is clearly delineated. We can see five ways in
which he met this growing opposition.

(i) He met it with courageous defiance. In the story of the healing of the man with
the paralysed hand (Matthew 12:9-14) we see him deliberately defying the Scribes
and Pharisees. This thing was not done in a corner; it was done in a crowded
synagogue. It was not done in their absence; it was done when they were there with
deliberate intent to formulate a charge against him. So far from evading the
challenge, Jesus is about to meet it head on.
(ii) He met it with warning. In Matthew 12:22-32 we see Jesus giving the most
terrible of warnings. He is warning those men that, if they persist in shutting their
eyes to the truth of God, they are on the way to a situation where, by their own act,
they will have shut themselves out from the grace of God. Here Jesus is not so much
on the defence as on the attack. He makes quite clear where their attitude is taking
them.
(iii) He met it with a staggering series of claims. He is greater than the Temple
(Matthew 12:6), and the Temple was the most sacred place in all the world. He is
greater than Jonah, and no preacher ever produced repentance so amazingly as
Jonah did (Matthew 12:41). He is greater than Solomon, and Solomon was the very
acme of wisdom (Matthew 12:42). His claim is that there is nothing in spiritual
history than which he is not greater. There are no apologies here; there is the
statement of the claims of Christ at their highest.
(iv) He met it with the statement that his teaching is essential. The point of the
strange parable of the Empty House (Matthew 12:43-45) is that the Law may
negatively empty a man of evil, but only the gospel can fill him with good. The Law
therefore simply leaves a man an empty invitation for all evil to take up its residence
within his heart; the gospel so fills him with positive goodness that evil cannot enter
in. Here is Jesus, claim that the gospel can do for men what the Law can never do.
(v) Finally, he met it with an invitation. Matthew 12:46-50 are in essence an
invitation to enter into kinship with him. These verses are not so much a disowning
of Jesus' own kith and kin as an invitation to all men to enter into kinship with him,
through the acceptance of the will of God, as that will has come to men in him. They
are an invitation to abandon our own prejudices and self-will and to accept Jesus
Christ as Master and Lord. If we refuse, we drift farther away from God; if we
accept, we enter into the very family and heart of God.
BARCLAY, "In Palestine in the time of Jesus the cornfields and the cultivated lands
were laid out in long narrow strips; and the ground between the strips was always a
right of way. It was on one of these strips between the cornfields that the disciples
and Jesus were walking when this incident happened.
There is no suggestion that the disciples were stealing. The Law expressly laid it
down that the hungry traveller was entitled to do just what the disciples were doing,
so long as he only used his hands to pluck the ears of corn, and did not use a sickle:
"When you go into your neighbours standing grain, you may pluck the ears with
your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbours standing grain"

(Deuteronomy 23:25). W. M. Thomson in The Land and the Book tells how, when
he was travelling in Palestine, the same custom still existed. One of the favourite
evening dishes for the traveller is parched corn. "When travelling in harvest time,"
Thomson writes, "my muleteers have very often prepared parched corn in the
evenings after the tent has been pitched. or is the gathering of these green ears for
parching ever regarded as stealing.... So, also, I have seen my muleteers, as we
passed along the wheat fields, pluck off the ears, rub them in their hands, and eat
the grains unroasted, just as the apostles are said to have done."
In the eyes of the Scribes and Pharisees, the fault of the disciples was not that they
had plucked and eaten the grains of corn, but that they had done so on the Sabbath.
The Sabbath Law was very complicated and very detailed. The commandment
forbids work on the Sabbath day; but the interpreters of the Law were not satisfied
with that simple prohibition. Work had to be defined. So thirty-nine basic actions
were laid down, which were forbidden on the Sabbath, and amongst them were
reaping, winnowing and threshing, and preparing a meal. The interpreters were not
even prepared to leave the matter there. Each item in the list of forbidden works
had to be carefully defined. For instance, it was forbidden to carry a burden. But
what is a burden? A burden is anything which weighs as much as two dried figs.
Even the suggestion of work was forbidden; even anything which might
symbolically be regarded as work was prohibited. Later the great Jewish teacher,
Maimonides, was to say, "To pluck ears is a kind of reaping." By their conduct the
disciples were guilty of far more than one breach of the Law. By plucking the corn
they were guilty of reaping; by rubbing it in their hands they were guilty of
threshing; by separating the grain and the chaff they were guilty of winnowing; and
by the whole process they were guilty of preparing a meal on the Sabbath day, for
everything which was to be eaten on the Sabbath had to be prepared the day before.
The orthodox Jews took this Sabbath Law with intense seriousness. The Book of
Jubilee has a chapter (chapter 50) about the keeping of the Sabbath. Whoever lies
with his wife, or plans to do anything on the Sabbath, or plans to set out on a
journey (even the contemplation of work is forbidden), or plans to buy or sell, or
draws water, or lifts a burden is condemned. Any man who does any work on the
Sabbath (whether the work is in his house or in any other place), or goes a journey,
or tills a farm, any man who lights a fire or rides any beast, or travels by ship at sea,
any man who strikes or kills anything, any man who catches an animal, a bird, or a
fish, any man who fasts or who makes war on a Sabbath--the man who does these
things shall die. To keep these commandments was to keep the Law of God; to break
them was to break the Law of God.
There is no doubt whatever that, from their own point of view, the Scribes and
Pharisees were entirely justified in finding fault with the disciples for breaking the
Law, and with Jesus for allowing them, if not encouraging them, to do so.
The Claim Of Human eed (Matthew 12:1-8 Continued)
To meet the criticism of the Scribes and Pharisees Jesus put forward three
arguments.

(i) He quoted the action of David (1 Samuel 21:1-6) on the occasion when David and
his young men were so hungry that they went into the tabernacle--not the Temple,
because this happened in the days before the Temple was built--and ate the
shewbread, which only the priests could eat. The shewbread is described in
Leviticus 24:5-9. It consisted of twelve loaves of bread, which were placed every
week in two rows of six in the Holy Place. o doubt they were a symbolic offering in
which God was thanked for his gift of sustaining food. These loaves were changed
every week, and the old loaves became the perquisite of the priests and could only be
eaten by them. On this occasion, in their hunger, David and his young men took and
ate those sacred loaves, and no blame attached to them. The claims of human need
took precedence over any ritual custom.
(ii) He quoted the Sabbath work of the Temple. The Temple ritual always involved
work--the kindling of fires, the slaughter and the preparation of animals, the lifting
of them on to the altar, and a host of other things. This work was actually doubled
on the Sabbath, for on the Sabbath the offerings were doubled (compare e.g.
umbers 28:9). Any one of these actions would have been illegal for any ordinary
person to perform on the Sabbath day. To light a fire, to slaughter an animal, to lift
it up on to the altar would have been to break the Law, and hence to profane the
Sabbath. But for the priests it was perfectly legal to do these things, for the Temple
worship must go on. That is to say, worship offered to God took precedence of an
the Sabbath rules and regulations.
(iii) He quoted God's word to Hosea the prophet: "I desire steadfast love and not
sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6). What God desires far more than ritual sacrifice is kindness,
the spirit which knows no law other than that it must answer the call of human
need.
In this incident Jesus lays it down that the claim of human need must take
precedence of all other claims. The claims of worship, the claims of ritual, the claims
of liturgy are important but prior to any of them is the claim of human need.
One of the modern saints of God is Father George Potter who, out of the derelict
Church of St. Chrysostom's in Peckham, made a shining light of Christian worship
and Christian service. To further the work he founded the Brotherhood of the
Order of the Holy Cross, whose badge was the towel which Jesus Christ wore when
he washed his disciples' feet. There was no service too menial for the brothers to
render; their work for the outcast and for homeless boys with a criminal record or
criminal potentialities is beyond all praise. Father Potter held the highest possible
ideas of worship; and yet when he is explaining the work of the Brotherhood he
writes of anyone who wishes to enter into its triple vow of poverty, chastity and
obedience: "He mustn't sulk if he cannot get to Vespers on the Feast of St.
Thermogene. He may be sitting in a police court waiting for a 'client'. . . . He
mustn't be the type who goes into the kitchen and sobs just because we run short of
incense. . . . We put prayer and sacraments first. We know we cannot do our best
otherwise, but the fact is that we have to spend more time at the bottom of the

Mount of Transfiguration than at the top." He tells about one candidate who
arrived, when he was just about to give his boys a cup of cocoa and put them to bed.
"So I said, 'Just clean round the bath will you while it's wet?' He stood aghast and
stuttered, 'I didn't expect to clean up after dirty boys!' Well, well! His life of devoted
service to the Blessed Master lasted about seven minutes. He did not unpack."
Florence Allshorn, the great principal of a women's missionary college, tells of the
problem of the candidate who always discovers that her time for quiet prayer has
come just when there are greasy dishes to be washed in not very warm water.
Jesus insisted that the greatest ritual service is the service of human need. It is an
odd thing to think that, with the possible exception of that day in the synagogue at
azareth, we have no evidence that Jesus ever conducted a church service in all his
life on earth, but we have abundant evidence that he fed the hungry and comforted
the sad and cared for the sick. Christian service is not the service of any liturgy or
ritual; it is the service of human need. Christian service is not monastic retiral; it is
involvement in all the tragedies and problems and demands of the human situation.
Whittier had it rightly:
"O brother man, fold to thy heart thy brother!
Where pity dwells, the peace of God is there;
To worship rightly is to love each other,
Each smile a hymn, each kindly deed a prayer.
For he whom Jesus loved hath truly spoken;
The holier worship which he deigns to bless
Restores the lost, and binds the spirit broken,
And feeds the widow and the fatherless.
Follow with reverent steps the great example
Of Him whose holy work was doing good;
So shall the wide earth seem our Father's temple,
Each loving life a psalm of gratitude."
That is what we mean--or ought to mean--when we say, "Let us worship God!"
Master Of The Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8 Continued)
There remains in this passage one difficulty which it is not possible to solve with
absolute certainty. The difficulty lies in the last phrase, "For the Son of man is lord

of the sabbath." This phrase can have two meanings.
(i) It may mean that Jesus is claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath, in the sense that he
is entitled to use the Sabbath as he thinks fit. We have seen that the sanctity of the
work of the Temple surpassed and over-rode the Sabbath rules and regulations;
Jesus has just claimed that something greater than the Temple is here in him;
therefore he has the right to dispense with the Sabbath regulations and to do as he
thinks best on the Sabbath day. That may be said to be the traditional interpretation
of this sentence, but there are real difficulties in it.
(ii) On this occasion Jesus is not defending himself for anything that he did on the
Sabbath; he is defending his disciples; and the authority which he is stressing here is
not so much his own authority as the authority of human need. And it is to be noted
that when Mark tells of this incident he introduces another saying of Jesus as part
of the climax of it: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"
(Mark 2:27).
To this we must add the fact that in Hebrew and Aramaic the phrase son of man is
not a title at all, but simply a way of saying a man. When the Rabbis began a
parable, they often began it: "There was a son of man who..."; when we would
simply say, "There was a man who . . ." The Psalmist writes, "What is man that
thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou dost care for him?" (Psalms
8:4). Again and again the Ezekiel God addresses Ezekiel as son of man. "And he
said to me: 'Son of man, stand upon your feet and I will speak with you'" (Ezekiel
2:1; compare Ezekiel 2:6; Ezekiel 2:8; Ezekiel 3:1; Ezekiel 3:4; Ezekiel 3:17; Ezekiel
3:25). In all these cases son of man, spelled without the capital letters, simply means
man.
In the (early and best) Greek manuscripts of the ew Testament all the words were
written completely in capital letters. In these manuscripts (called uncials) it would
not be possible to tell where special capitals are necessary. Therefore, in Matthew
12:8, it may well be that son of man should be written without capital letters, and
that the phrase does not refer to Jesus but simply to man.
If we consider that what Jesus is pressing is the claims of human need; if we
remember that it is not himself but his disciples that he is defending; if we
remember that Mark tells us that he said that the Sabbath was made for man and
not man for the Sabbath; then we may well conclude that what Jesus said here is:
"Man is not the slave of the Sabbath; he is the master of it, to use it for his own
good." Jesus may well be rebuking the Scribes and Pharisees for enslaving
themselves and their fellow-men with a host of tyrannical regulations; and he may
well be here laying down the great principle of Christian freedom, which applies to
the Sabbath as it does to all other things in life.
COFFMA , "This action of Jesus' disciples should have been passed over and
ignored altogether; but the bitter, hair-splitting Pharisees, finding no genuine fault
in the conduct of Jesus and his disciples, attempted to make a case out of this. Their

knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds.
Their spies must have included half the population! The time was April or May,
when the grain was formed in the ear but not yet harvested. The grain was likely
wheat; Indian corn would not be known until after Columbus discovered America.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 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. Christ’s 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 Christ’s 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 Lord’s 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
man’s real piety in every age of the Church, he will be found to Lave been a diligent
observer of the Sabbath day. (Cecil’s 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 Christ’s example, as we have opportunity. And it is this perhaps, that may
especially expose us to the unkind remarks of those who make the Lord’s 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.
2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him,
“Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful
on the Sabbath.”
BAR ES, "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.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL,"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, ‫,ושדותיו‬ "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), ‫הוא‬ ‫קוצר‬ ‫תולדה‬ ‫ותולש‬
, 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 ου
ερνος ου κλαδον, αλλ' ουδε πεταλον εφειται τεµειν, "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).
JAMISO , "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.
LIGHTFOOT,"[They do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath day.] They
do not contend about the thing itself, because it was lawful, Deuteronomy 23:25; but
about the thing done on the sabbath. Concerning which the Fathers of the
Traditions write thus; "He that reaps on the sabbath, though never so little, is
guilty. And to pluck the ears of corn is a kind of reaping; and whosoever plucks any

thing from the springing of his own fruit is guilty, under the name of a reaper." But
under what guilt were they held? He had said this before, at the beginning of
chapter 7, in these words: "The works whereby a man is guilty of stoning and
cutting off, if he do them presumptuously; but if ignorantly, he is bound to bring a
sacrifice for sin, are either primitive or derivative" Of 'primitive,' or of the general
kinds of works, are nine-and-thirty reckoned; "To plough, to sow, to reap, to gather
the sheaves, to thrash, to sift, to grind, to bake, &c.; to shear sheep, to dye wool,"
&c. The derivative works, or the particulars of those generals, are such as are of the
same rank and likeness with them. For example, digging is of the same kind with
ploughing; chopping of herbs is of the same rank with grinding; and plucking the
ears of corn is of the same nature with reaping. Our Saviour, therefore, pleaded the
cause of the disciples so much the more eagerly, because now their lives were in
danger; for the canons of the scribes adjudged them to stoning for what they had
done, if so be it could be proved that they had done it presumptuously. From hence,
therefore, he begins their defence, that this was done by the disciples out of
necessity, hunger compelling them, not out of any contempt of the laws.
BROADUS, "Matthew 12:2. These Pharisees (compare on Matthew 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 (Mark 2:2) makes it a question addressed to him, and Luke
(Luke 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 Matthew 3:17). Which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath. It was
expressly permitted to do this in general, (Deuteronomy 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, Matthew 12:3 f., Matthew 12:5 f., Matthew 12:7,
and Matthew 12:8. A fifth argument is given in this connection by Mark 2:27, a
sixth below in Matthew 12:11 f., a seventh (probably just before at Jerusalem) in
John 5:17, and an eighth (much later) in John 7:22 f. The first argument is an
appeal to history, viz., to the conduct of David, (1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 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. (Exodus 23:19; Judges 18:31; 1 Samuel 1:7, 1
Samuel 1:24, 1 Samuel 3:15; 2 Samuel 12:20; Psalms 5:7; compare 1 Corinthians
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 Leviticus 24:5-9. Twelve very
large loaves of bread were placed on a small table (at a later period, two tables, 1
Chronicles 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 Aaronâ€”for this offering was to
he regarded as peculiarly sacred. (Leviticus 24:9) David was fleeing southward from
Gibeah, Saul having determined to slay him, and came to ob, 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 1 Samuel 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 (Luke 6:4) to eat the hallowed bread was justifiable, on the
ground of necessityâ€”a view in which all his hearers would concur. Kimchi, a
celebrated Jewish commentator of the thirteenth century, on 1 Samuel 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 (Mark 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 2 Maccabees 5:19.)
COFFMA , "This charge was false. God's law did not prohibit the preparation and
eating of food on the sabbath day. At the conclusion of the interview, Jesus referred
to his disciples as "guiltless" (Matthew 12:5). It is true, however, that the disciples
had violated a Pharisaical "interpretation" of the law; and such interpretations
were held even more sacred by the Pharisees than the law itself. In the Pharisees'
view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and
magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they
had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields! The
Pharisees were out to "get" Jesus; and any charge was better than none.
TRAPP, "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. ot 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, ehemiah 9:14, commanding them to
do no servile work therein, Leviticus 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.
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David
did when he and his companions were hungry?
BAR ES, "But he said unto them ... - To vindicate his disciples, he referred them
to a similar case, recorded in the Old Testament, and therefore one with which they
ought to have been acquainted. This was the case of David. The law commanded that
twelve loaves of bread should be laid on the table in the holy place in the tabernacle, to
remain a week, and then to be eaten by the “priests only.” Their place was then supplied
by fresh “bread.” This was called the “showbread,” Lev_24:5-9. David, fleeing before
Saul, weary and hungry, had come to Ahimelech the priest; had found only this bread;
had asked it of him, and had eaten it contrary to the “letter” of the law, 1Sa_21:1-7.
David, among the Jews, had high authority. This act had passed uncondemned. It
proved that in “cases of necessity the laws did not bind a man” - a principle which all
laws admit. So the “necessity” of the disciples justified them in doing on the Sabbath
what would have been otherwise unlawful.
CLARKE, "Have ye not read what David did - The original history is in 1Sa_
21:1-6.
When he was an hungered - Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the
ancients concerning this story in these words: “Our rabbins of blessed memory say, that
he gave him the shew-bread, etc. The interpretation also of the clause, Yea, though it
were sanctified this day in the vessel, is this: It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for
us to eat These Loaves, taken from before the Lord, when we are hungry; for it would be
lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for
the table sanctifieth), it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present
with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten. And a little after, There is nothing
which may hinder taking care of life, beside idolatry, adultery, and murder. That is, a
man, according to them, should do any thing but these in order to preserve life.” See

Lightfoot.
He entered into the house of God - Viz. the house of Ahimelech the priest, who
dwelt at Nob, with whom the tabernacle then was, in which the Divine presence was
manifested.
And did eat the shew - bread - Τους αρτους της προθεσεως - in Hebrew, ‫פנים‬ ‫לחם‬
lechem panim - bread of the presence, or faces, because this bread was to be set
continually, ‫יהוה‬ ‫לפני‬ lipney Yehovah, before the face of Jehovah. See the notes on Exo_
25:23, Exo_25:30.
“Since part of the frankincense put in the bread was to be burnt on the
altar for a memorial, Lev_24:7, and since Aaron and his sons were to eat
it in the holy place, it is evident that this bread typified Christ, first
presented as a sacrifice to, or in the presence of, Jehovah, and then
becoming spiritual food to such as, in and through him, are spiritual
priests to God. See Rev_1:6; Rev_5:10; Rev_20:6; also 1Pe_2:5.”
Parkhurst.
GILL,"But he said unto them, have ye not read,.... If they had not read the
Scriptures, they were very unfit persons either to be teachers, or censurers of others, and
must have been very slothful and negligent; and if they had, they could not but have
observed the case of David, which Christ produces in vindication of his disciples:
what David did when he was an hungred; which was the case of the disciples, and
is therefore mentioned; it being also the circumstance which could, and did excuse what
was done by David and his men: and the Jews themselves own, that in case of hunger the
showbread might be eaten, by those that were not priests; not only that which was
removed from the table, but that which was upon it; yea, even when there was none to
put in its room (l); and that David was in the utmost distress, and therefore desired it,
and it was granted him on that account. They represent him as thus saying to the priest
(m),
"when he found there was none but showbread, give it me, that we may not die with
hunger; ‫שבת‬ ‫דוחה‬ ‫נפשות‬ ‫,שספק‬ "for danger of life drives away the sabbath";''
which perfectly agrees with our Lord's argument, and justifies the apostles conduct: and
this was not a single fact of David's, but of others also;
and they that were with him; for though in 1Sa_21:1 he is said to be "alone, and no
man with him"; yet this must be understood either comparatively, having but very few
with him, and which were as none, considering his dignity; or thus, though none came
with him to Ahimelech, pretending to the priest he had a secret affair of the king's to
transact; and therefore had left his servants in a certain place, and desires bread for
himself and them; concerning whom the priest and he discourses, as may be seen in the
place referred to: so that though no man was with him at the priest's house, yet there
were some with him, and who partook with him in eating of the showbread.

HE RY, "[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 (1Sa_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, 2Ch_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.
JAMISO , "But he said unto them, Have ye not read — or, as Mark (Mar_
2:25) has it, “Have ye never read.”
what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him —
(1Sa_21:1-6)
CALVI ,"Matthew 12:3.Have you not read what David did? Christ employs five
arguments to refute their calumny. First, he apologizes for his disciples by pleading
the example of David, (1 Samuel 21:6.) While David was fleeing from the rage of
Saul, he applied for provisions to the high-priest Ahimelech; and there being no
ordinary food at hand, he succeeded in obtaining a part of the holy bread. If David’s
necessity excused him, the same argument ought to be admitted in the case of others.
Hence it follows, that the ceremonies of the Law are not violated where there is no
infringement of godliness. (77) ow Christ takes for granted, that David was free
from blame, because the Holy Spirit bestows commendation on the priest who
allowed him to partake of the holy bread. When he says, that it was not lawful to eat
that bread but for the priests alone, we must understand him to refer to the
ordinary law:
they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made,
to consecrate and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not
eat thereof, because they are holy, (Exodus 29:33.)
If David had attempted to do what was contrary to law, it would have been in vain
for Christ to plead his example; for what had been prohibited for a particular end
no necessity could make lawful.
LIGHTFOOT, "[David, and those that were with him.] For those words of
Ahimelech are to be understood comparatively, "Wherefore art thou alone, and no

man with thee?" (1 Sam 21:1) that is, comparatively to that noble train wherewith
thou wast wont to go attended, and which becomes the captain-general of Israel.
David came to ob, not as one that fled, but as one that came to inquire at the oracle
concerning the event of war, unto which he pretended to come by the king's
command. Dissembling, therefore, that he hastened to the war, or to expedite some
warlike design, he dissembles likewise that he sent his army to a certain place; and
that he had turned aside thither to worship God, and to inquire of the vent; that he
had brought but a very few of his most trusty servants along with him, for whom,
being an hungered, he asketh a few loaves.
[When he was an hungered.] Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the
ancients concerning this story in these words: "Our Rabbins, of blessed memory,
say, that he gave him the show-bread, &c. The interpretation also of the clause, yea,
though it were sanctified this day in the vessel [v 6] is this; It is a small thing to say,
that it is lawful for us to eat these loaves taken from before the Lord when we are
hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also
sanctified in the vessel (for the table sanctifieth); it would be lawful to eat even this,
when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten."
And a little after; "There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life, beside
idolatry, adultery, and murder."
These words do excellently agree with the force of our Saviour's arguments; but
with the genuine sense of that clause, methinks they do not well agree. I should,
under correction, render it otherwise, only prefacing this beforehand, that it is no
improbable conjecture that David came to ob either on the sabbath itself, or when
the sabbath was but newly gone. "For the show-bread was not to be eaten unless for
one day and one night; that is, on the sabbath and the going-out of the sabbath;
David, therefore, came thither in the going-out of the sabbath." And now I render
David's words thus; "Women have been kept from us these three days," [so that
there is no uncleanness with us from the touch of a menstruous woman], "and the
vessels of the young men were holy, even in the common way," [that is, while we
travelled in the common manner and journey]; "therefore, much more are they holy
as to their vessels this [sabbath] day." And to this sense perhaps does that come:
"But there was there one of the servants of Saul detained that day before the Lord,"
[v 8]. The reverence of the sabbath had brought him to worship, and as yet had
detained him there.
COFFMA , " ote that what David and his companions did on that occasion was
U LAWFUL, nor does Jesus say that they were blameless in so doing. That was not
the point of bringing up the conduct of David. Some commentators have drawn
unjustifiable conclusions from this, as, for example, Dummelow, who wrote:
He (Christ) 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.[1]
We agree with McGarvey's words,

If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or
suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end, even,
of self-denial?[2]
Why then did Christ mention those unlawful actions of David? It was because the
Pharisees wholeheartedly approved of that far more flagrant case of sabbath-
breaking by David (for David's action WAS unlawful; the disciples' was not), and
yet were willing to press an accusation of wrongdoing against the Christ for
something of infinitely less consequence. That the Pharisees did approve David's
conduct was well known; and, if they had not approved it, they could have turned
Jesus' words against him by saying, "So, you class yourself with David, but both you
and David are sinners." That they did not so respond proves that they approved of
David's conduct. Thus, their hypocrisy was open for all to see.
[1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary ( ew York: The Macmillan
Company, 1937), p. 666.
[2] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel
Light Publishing Company), p. 104.
TRAPP, "Ver. 3. But he said unto them] They had not proved a breach of the
Sabbath, neither could they. A breach it had been, had not the disciples been
hungry, and he denies it not, but confutes their present cavils by clear syllogisms,
one in the neck of another, such as they could not answer, nor abide, {a} and
therefore sought to destroy him, Matthew 12:14. See here the lawful use of logic in
divinity, and mistake not St Jerome, Qui syllogizandi artem, applicatam Theologiae,
comparat plagis Aegypti: understand him of that false sophistry, which the apostle
calleth vain philosophy, Col. ii.
David did when he was an hungred] ote here, that our Saviour excuseth David
from his necessity, not from his dignity, which in point of sin God regards not;
Potentes potenter torquebuntur. And yet how many are there who think, that when
they have gotten an office, they may oppress at pleasure, swear by authority, drink
and swill without control? But height of place ever adds two wings to sin, example
and scandal. And ill accidents ever attend such great ones, as, being absolute in
power, will be too resolute in will and dissolute in life. Queen Elizabeth said that
princes owe a double duty to God: 1. As men. 2. As princes. Sedes prima et vita ima,
is as unsuitable as for those that are clothed in scarlet to embrace the dunghill,
Lamentations 4:5.
4 He entered the house of God, and he and his
companions ate the consecrated bread—which

was not lawful for them to do, but only for the
priests.
BAR ES, "How he entered into the house of God - That is, the “tabernacle,”
the temple not being then built.
Have ye not read in the law? - In the law, or in the books of Moses.
Profane the Sabbath - He referred them to the conduct of the priests also. On the
Sabbath days they were engaged, as well as on other days, in killing beasts for sacrifice,
Num_28:9-10. Two lambs were killed on the Sabbath, in addition to the daily sacrifice.
The priests must be engaged in killing them, and making fires to burn them in sacrifice,
whereas to kindle a fire was expressly forbidden the Jews on the Sabbath, Exo_35:3.
They did that which, for other persons to do, would have been “profaning” the Sabbath.
Yet they were blameless. They did what was necessary and commanded. This was done
in the very temple, too, the place of holiness, where the law should be most strictly
observed.
GILL,"How he entered into the house of God,.... Not the temple, which was not
then built; but the tabernacle, which was then at Nob, the city of the priests, and which
probably adjoined to Abimelech's house:
and did eat the shewbread; for that this is meant by the hallowed bread, in 1Sa_21:6
is certain; though R. Joseph Kimchi (n) thinks it was the bread of the thank offering; to
which R. Levi ben Getsom (o) seems to incline: but the general sense of the Jewish
doctors (p) is, that it was the showbread; and which is very clear from that text, and is
rightly affirmed by Christ;
which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him,
but only for the priests: see Lev_24:5 and so the Jews say that this bread ‫לזרים‬ ‫,אסור‬
"is forbidden to strangers" (q); that is, to any but the priests, which, after the burning of
the frankincense, was divided equally among them: that course of priests that came into
the service had six cakes, and that which went out six; though the high priest had a right
to half himself, but he did not use to take it, it being judged not to his honour to do so
(r). No hint is here given, nor in the history, in 1Sa_21:1 that it was on the sabbath day
that David came to Ahimelech, and ate the showbread; but this is observed, and
disputed, by the Jewish writers. Some indeed are in a doubt about it; but others (s)
readily give into it, that it was on the sabbath day, which he chose to flee in, for the
greater safety and preservation of his life: and indeed it seems reasonable it should be on
that day; since on that day only the showbread was removed from the table, and other
loaves put in the room. One of their writers (t) says,
"that showbread was not to be eaten, but on the day, and night of the sabbath day; and
on the going out of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath David came
there.''
Now our Lord's argument stands thus, that if David, a holy, good man, and, the men that

were with him, who were men of religion and conscience, when in great distress, through
hunger, ate of the showbread, which was unlawful for any to eat of but priests, the high
priest himself assenting to it; then it could not be criminal in his disciples, when an
hungred, to pluck, rub, and eat a few ears of corn, which were lawful for any man to eat,
even though it was on the sabbath day: and for the further vindication of them, he adds,
JAMISO , "How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the
showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which
were with him, but only for the priests? — No example could be more apposite
than this. The man after God’s own heart, of whom the Jews ever boasted, when
suffering in God’s cause and straitened for provisions, asked and obtained from the high
priest what, according to the law, it was illegal for anyone save the priests to touch. Mark
(Mar_2:26) says this occurred “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” But this means
not during his high priesthood - for it was under that of his father Ahimelech - but
simply, in his time. Ahimelech was soon succeeded by Abiathar, whose connection with
David, and prominence during his reign, may account for his name, rather than his
father’s, being here introduced. Yet there is not a little confusion in what is said of these
priests in different parts of the Old Testament. Thus he is called both the son of the
father of Ahimelech (1Sa_22:20; 2Sa_8:17); and Ahimelech is called Ahiah (1Sa_14:3),
and Abimelech (1Ch_18:16).
5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests
on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the
Sabbath and yet are innocent?
CLARKE, "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, Exo_29:38; Num_28:9.
GILL,"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, ‫שבת‬ ‫את‬ ‫שחוטה‬ ‫,דחתה‬ "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; ‫הוא‬ ‫התר‬ ‫במקדש‬ ‫שבות‬ ‫,איסור‬ "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:
HE RY, "[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.
JAMISO , "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; 1Ch_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, Joh_7:23).
CALVI ,"5.That on the Sabbaths the priests profane the Sabbath. This is the
second argument by which Christ proves that the violation of the Sabbath, of which
the Pharisees complained, was free from all blame; because on the Sabbaths it is
lawful to slay beasts for sacrifice, to circumcise infants, and to do other things
relating to the worship of God. Hence it follows, that the duties of piety are in no
degree inconsistent with each other. (78) But if the temple sanctifies manual
operations connected with sacrifices, and with the whole of the outward service, the
holiness of the true and spiritual temple has greater efficacy, in exempting its
worshippers from all blame, while they are discharging the duties of godliness. (79)
ow the object which the disciples had in view was, to present to God souls which
were consecrated by the Gospel.
Matthew alone glances at this argument. When Christ says, that the priests Profane
the Sabbath, the expression is not strictly accurate, and is accommodated to his
hearers; for when the Law enjoins men to abstain from their employments, it does
not forbid them to perform the services of religion. But Christ admits that to be true

which might appear to be so in the eye of ignorant persons, (80) and rests satisfied
with proving, that the labors performed in the temple are not offensive to God.
BROADUS, "Matthew 12:5 f. A second ground of justification for the disciples was
drawn, not from sacred history, but from the law. ( umbers 28:9-10, umbers
28:18-19) Here as in Matthew 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 Matthew 7:9. Have ye not read, as in Matthew 12:8;
(compare Matthew 12:7) Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, etc., reproaches them with
ignorance of Scripture. Temple is here the general term, 'sacred (place),' including
the whole consecrated enclosureâ€”buildings, courts, and all (see on "Matthew
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 Sabbathâ€”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 Matthew 12:5 and Matthew 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 oneâ€”or,somethingâ€”greater than the temple. The correct reading makes
the Greek word not masculine, 'a greater (man),' but neuter, 'a greater (thing),'
compare Matthew 12:41, and Matthew 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. (John 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. (Matthew 12:8 goes further still.)
COFFMA , "This reference is to the fact than an exception was made for the
priests who served in the temple, and who could, therefore, do work on the sabbath
that would otherwise have been unlawful. Christ's stress on that exception called
attention to an analogy between himself and the temple. He referred to his body as
"the temple," stating that he would raise it up in three days (John 2:19). The
argument is that, just as the priests served the temple on the sabbath day and were
guiltless, his disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without
incurring guilt. Thus, even if his disciples had violated the sabbath restrictions
(which they had not done), their doing so in the service of Christ would have
granted them exemption. "Profaning" the sabbath does not refer to any actual
profanation, but means that their actions, if performed otherwise than in temple

service, would have profaned it.
COKE, "Matthew 12:5. Or have ye not read in the law, &c.— He did not mean that
these words were to be found in the law, but that they might read in the law, that
the priests were obliged on the sabbath-day to perform such servile work in the
temple, as, considered separately from the end of it, was a profanation of the
sabbath; and yet were guiltless, because it was necessary to the public worship, on
account of which the sabbath was instituted. From umbers 28:9 it appears, that,
besides the continual burnt-offerings, 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. This, though really no profanation of
the sabbath, might, according to the common notion of the Jews, be so termed; and
therefore, in speaking of it, our Lord calls it so.
TRAPP, "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
6 I tell you that something greater than the temple
is here.
BAR ES, "One greater than the temple - Here the Saviour refers to himself, and
to his own dignity and power. “I have power over the laws; I can grant to my disciples a
dispensation from those laws. An act which I command or permit them to do is therefore
right.” This proves that he was divine. None but God can authorize people to do a thing
contrary to the divine laws. He refers them again Mat_12:7 to a passage he had before
quoted (See the notes at Mat_9:13), showing that God preferred acts of righteousness,
rather than a precise observance of a ceremonial law.
Mark adds Mar_2:27 “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
That is, the Sabbath was intended for the welfare of man; it was designed to promote his

happiness, and not to produce misery by harsh, unfeeling requirements. It is not to be so
interpreted as to produce suffering by making the necessary supply of wants unlawful.
Man was not made for the Sabbath. Man was created first, and then the Sabbath was
appointed for his happiness, Gen_2:1-3. His necessities, his real comforts and needs, are
not to be made to bend to that which was made “for him.” The laws are to be interpreted
favorably to his real wants and comforts. This authorizes works only of real necessity,
not of imaginary wants, or amusements, or common business and worldly employments.
CLARKE, "In this place is one greater than the temple - Does not our Lord
refer here to Mal_3:1? Compare this with Heb_3:3. The Jews esteemed nothing greater
than the temple, except that God who was worshipped in it. Christ, by asserting he was
greater than the temple, asserts that he was God; and this he does, in still more direct
terms, Mat_12:8, The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath - is Institutor and Governor of
it. Compare this with Gen_2:3 (note), and see the notes there.
GILL,"But I say unto you,.... Who Christ knew would be ready to object, as above,
and therefore prevents them, by saying,
that in this place is one greater than the temple; meaning himself, who was the
Lord and Proprietor of the temple, and in his human nature the antitype of it; see Joh_
2:19 and was infinitely more sacred than that. Some copies read µειζον, "something
greater"; referring either to the human nature of Christ, in which the Godhead dwells
bodily, and so infinitely greater than the temple; or to the health of his disciples, which
was in danger, through hunger: or to the ministry of the apostles, which, by satisfying
nature, they were more capable of performing; either of which was of more moment
than the sacrifices and service of the temple. Christ's argument is, that if the temple, and
the service of it, excused the priests from blame, in doing things in it on the sabbath day,
which otherwise might not be done; then much more might his presence, who was
greater than the temple, excuse his disciples from blame in this action of rubbing and
eating the ears of corn; which was done to satisfy hunger, and to render them the more
capable of performing their ministerial function; and which was of more importance
than the service of the priests.
HE RY, "(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.
JAMISO , "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the
temple — or rather, according to the reading which is best supported, “something
greater.” The argument stands thus: “The ordinary rules for the observance of the
sabbath give way before the requirements of the temple; but there are rights here before

which the temple itself must give way.” Thus indirectly, but not the less decidedly, does
our Lord put in His own claims to consideration in this question - claims to be presently
put in even more nakedly.
SBC, "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.
COFFMA ,"Who but God Himself could be greater than the temple God
ordained? Christ again made a statement fixing a gulf between himself and all
ordinary men. This is a dramatic reference to the analogy between Christ and the
temple, mentioned under the preceding verse, and makes it crystal clear that Jesus'
disciples were totally within the law, and were, like the temple priests, GUILTLESS!
Those expositors who assume the charge of the Pharisees to have been correct,
making Jesus' justification of his disciples to be merely that "David did it too,"
appear totally to have misunderstood this portion of God's word. And then, to go
forward and formulate a law authorizing in prescribed circumstances the breaking
of God's laws, is to forget that Jesus said, "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19).

Matthew 12 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Matthew 12 commentary

Similar to Matthew 12 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Matthew 12 commentary