Mat 12:1-13 | Barnes | STEP | MATTHEW CHAPTER 12 Verses 1-8. The account contained in these verses is also recorded in . Verse 1. At that time . 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, 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, . From this day was reckoned seven weeks to the feast of Pentecost , called also the feast of weeks, and the feast of the harvest, . This second day in the feast of the passover, or of unleavened bread, was the beginning , therefore, from which they reckoned towards 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 till the discovery of America, and it is scarcely probable that the translators knew anything of it. The word 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 to separate the grain from the chaff. (h) "At that time" (i) "???"

Matthew 12:1-13

MATTHEW CHAPTER 12

Verses 1-8. The account contained in these verses is also recorded in Mk 2:23-28, Lk 6:1-5.

Verse 1. At that time. Lk 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, Ex 12:1-28, 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, De 16:10 and the feast of the harvest, Ex 23:16. This second day in the feast of the passover, or of unleavened bread, was the beginning, therefore, from which they reckoned towards 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 till the discovery of America, and it is scarcely probable that the translators knew anything of it. The word 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 Lk 6:1 to separate the grain from the chaff.

(h) "At that time" Mk 2:25, Lk 6:1 (i) "???" De 23:25 Verse 2. 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, Ex 20:10, 35:2,3, Nu 15:32-36. On any other day this would have been clearly lawful, for it was permitted, De 23:25.

(k) "not lawful" Ex 31:15 Verse 3. But he said unto them, etc. 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 supplied then by fresh bread. This was called the shew-bread, 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, 1Sam 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.

(l) "David did" 1Sam 21:6 Verses 4,5. House of God. That was, the tabernacle; the temple not being then built.

In the law. In the law 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, Nu 28:9,10. Two lambs were killed on the sabbath, in addition to the daily sacrifice. The priests must be engaged in slaying them, and making fires to burn them in sacrifice; whereas to kindle a fire was expressly forbidden the Jews on the sabbath, (Ex 35:3) they were obliged to skin them, prepare them for sacrifice, and burn them, 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.

(m) "shewbread" Ex 25:30 (n) "only for priests" Ex 29:32,33 Verse 5. Mt 12:4

(o) "in the law" Nu 28:9 (p) "in the temple" Jn 7:22,23 Verse 6. One greater than the temple. Here he 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 the Jewish 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 men to do a thing contrary to the Divine laws. He refers them again to a passage he had before quoted, Mt 9:13 showing that God preferred acts of righteousness, rather than a precise observance of a ceremonial law.

Mark adds, Mk 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; 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 wants, are not to bend to that which was made for him. The laws are to be interpreted favourably to his real wants and comforts. This authorizes works only of real necessity, not of imaginary wants, or amusement, or common business, and worldly employments.

To crown all, Christ says that he was Lord of the Sabbath. He had a right to direct the manner of its observance--undoubted proof that he is Divine.

(q) "greater than" 2Chr 6:18, Mal 3:1, Mt 23:17-21 Verse 7.

(r) "what this means" Hoss 6:6 Verses 9-13. The account contained in these verses is recorded also in Mk 3:1-5, Lk 6:6-10.

(s) "And when he was" Mk 3:1, Lk 6:6 Verse 10. A man which had his hand withered. This was probably one form of the palsy. Mt 4:24.

Mark and Luke have mentioned some circumstances omitted by Matthew. They say that Jesus addressed the man, and told him to stand forth in the midst. He then addressed the people. He asked them if it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day? This was admitted by all their teachers, and it could not be denied. They were therefore silent. He then appealed to them, and drew an argument from their own conduct. A man that had a sheep that should fall into a pit on the Sabbath day would exercise the common offices of humanity, and draw it out. If a man would save the life of a sheep, was it not proper to save the life of a man ? By a reference to their own conduct, he silenced them.

Mark adds, that he looked on them with anger; that is, with strong disapprobation of their conduct. Their envy and malignity excited feelings of holy indignation. Mk 3:5.

(t) "Is it lawful" Lk 14:3 Verse 11.

(u) "and if it fall" De 22:4 Verse 12. A man better than a sheep. Of more consequence, or value. If you would show an act of kindness to a brute beast on the Sabbath, how much more important is it to evince similar kindness to one made in the image of God! one for whom the Saviour came to die, and who may be raised up to everlasting life.

It is lawful to do well. This was universally allowed by the Jews in the abstract; and Jesus only showed them that the principle on which they acted in other things applied with more force to the case before him, and that the act which he was about to perform was, by their own confession, lawful. Verse 13. And he said, Stretch forth thine hand. This was a remarkable commandment. The man might have said that he had no strength; that it was a thing which he could not do. Yet, being commanded, it was his duty to obey. He did so, and was healed. So the sinner; it is his duty to obey whatever God commands. He will give strength to those who attempt to do his will. It is not right to plead, when God commands us to do a thing, that we have no strength. God will give us strength, if there is a disposition to obey. At the same time, however, this passage should not be applied to the sinner, as if it proved that he has no more strength or ability than the man who had the withered hand. It proves no such thing. It has no reference to any such case. And it should not be used as if it proved any such thing. It may be used to prove that man should instantly obey the commands of God, without pausing to examine the question about his ability, and especially without saying that he can do nothing. What would the Saviour have said to this man, if he had objected that he could not stretch out his hand?

It was restored whole, Christ had before claimed Divine authority and power, Mt 13:6-9. He now showed that he possessed it. By his own power he healed him; thus evincing, by a miracle, that his claim of being Lord of the Sabbath was well founded.

These two cases determine what may be done on the Sabbath. The one was a case of necessity; the other of mercy. The example of the Saviour, and his explanations, show that these are a part of the proper duties of that holy day. Beyond an honest and conscientious discharge of these two duties, men may not devote the Sabbath to any secular purpose. If they do, they do it at their peril. They go beyond what his authority authorizes them to do. They do what he claimed the special right of doing, as being Lord of the Sabbath. They usurp his place; and act and legislate where God only has a right to act and legislate. Men may as well trample down any other law of the Bible, as that respecting the Sabbath.