Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 12:2
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.
2. that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day ] This prohibition is a Pharisaic rule not found in the Mosaic Law. It was a principle with the Pharisees to extend the provisions of the Law and make minute regulations over and beyond what Moses commanded, in order to avoid the possibility of transgression. To pluck ears of corn was in a sense, the Pharisees said, to reap, and to reap on the Sabbath day was forbidden and punishable by death. These regulations did in fact make void the Law; e. g. the result of this particular prohibition was to contravene the intention or motive of the Sabbath. If sabbatical observances prevented men satisfying hunger, the Sabbath was no longer a blessing but an injury to man.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do] The Jews were so superstitious, concerning the observance of the Sabbath, that in their wars with Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Romans, they thought it a crime even to attempt to defend themselves on the Sabbath: when their enemies observed this, they deterred their operations to that day. It was through this, that Pompey was enabled to take Jerusalem. Dion. Cass. lib. xxxvi.
Those who know not the spirit and design of the divine law are often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety. An intolerant and censorious spirit in religion is one of the greatest curses a man can well fall under.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
So saith Mark, Mar 2:24, only he puts it into the form of a question. Luke adds nothing, Luk 6:2, but saith, certain of the Pharisees. They granted the thing lawful to be done another day, but not on the sabbath day. How blind is superstition, that they could think that it was contrary to the will of God, that his people should fit themselves for the service of the sabbath by a moderate refreshment! Some of the Pharisees ordinarily attended Christs motions, not to be instructed by him, but (as is afterward said) that they might have something whereof to accuse him. What a little thing do they carp at! Wherein was the sin? The plucking of a few ears of corn, and rubbing them, could hardly be called servile labour, especially not in the sense of the commandment, which restrained not necessary labour, but such labour as took them off from the duties of the sabbath; but their tradition had made this unlawful, as it was a little reaping and a kind of threshing. Hypocrites and formalists are always most zealous for little things in the law, or for their own additaments to it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. But when the Pharisees saw it,they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawfulto do upon the sabbath dayThe act itself was expresslypermitted (De 23:25). But asbeing “servile work,” which was prohibited on the sabbathday, it was regarded as sinful.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But when the Pharisees saw it,…. Who went along with him, or followed him, being employed to make observation on his words and actions,
they said unto him; Luke says, “unto them”, the disciples: it seems, they took notice of this action both to Christ and his disciples, and first spoke of it to the one, and then to the other, or to both together:
behold thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day! they mention it with astonishment, and indignation. What they refer to, is not their walking on the sabbath day: this they might do, according to their canons, provided they did not exceed two thousand cubits, which were a sabbath day’s journey f nor was it their passing through the corn fields; though, according to them g,
“it was not lawful for a man to visit his gardens, , “or his fields”, on the sabbath day, to see what they want, or how the fruits grow; for such walking is to do his own pleasure.”
But this they knew was not the case of Christ, and his disciples, who were not proprietors of these fields: nor was it merely their plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing and eating them, which were not their own, but another man’s; for this, according to the law, in
De 23:25 was lawful to be done: but what offended the Pharisees was, that it was done on a sabbath day, it being, as they interpret it, a servile work, and all one as reaping; though, in the law just mentioned, it is manifestly distinguished from it. Their rule is h
“he that reaps (on the sabbath day) ever so little, is guilty (of stoning), , and “plucking of ears of corn is a derivative of reaping”;”
and is all one as its primitive, and punishable with the same kind of death, if done presumptuously: so Philo the Jew observes i, that the rest of the sabbath not only reached to men, bond and free, and to beasts, but even to trees, and plants; and that
, ‘ , “it was not lawful to cut a plant, or branch, or so much as a leaf”, on a sabbath day: and it may be what might make this offence of the disciples the more heinous was, that they plucked these ears, and ate them, and so broke their fast before morning prayer; for a man might not eat any thing on a sabbath day until morning prayers were ended in the synagogue, nor indeed on any other day; for they used not to eat bread till after they had offered the daily sacrifice, which was about the third hour of the day, or nine o’clock in the morning; nor did they eat till the fourth hour, or ten o’clock k.
f Ib. c. 27. sect. 1. g R. Moses Kotzensis Mitzvot Tora prec. neg. 65. h Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 8. sect. 3. & 7. 1. i De Vita Mosis, 1. 2. p. 657. k Vid. Targum in Eccl. x. 17. Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 6. sect. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thy disciples do ( ). These critics are now watching a chance and they jump at this violation of their Pharisaic rules for Sabbath observance. The disciples were plucking the heads of wheat which to the Pharisees was reaping and were rubbing them in their hands (Lu 6:1) which was threshing.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
What is not lawful. “On any ordinary day this would have been lawful; but on the Sabbath it involved, according to the Rabbinic statutes, at least two sins, viz., plucking the ears, which was reaping, and rubbing them in their hands (Luk 6:1), which was sifting, grinding, or fanning. The Talmud says : ‘In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered as sifting; if she rubs the heads of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side – adherencies, it is sifting out fruit; if she bruises the ears, it is grinding; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing'” (Edersheim, ” Life and Times of Jesus “).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But when the Pharisees saw it,” (hoi de pharisaioi idontes) “Then when the Pharisees observed it,” as they watched Him with malice, sought occasion for offense against Him; Mat 3:7 describes who and what the Pharisees and Sadducees really were.
2) “They said unto him,” (eipan auto) “They said to him, critically,” as fault-finders who had made up their minds not to like Him or anything He did.
3) “Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful,” (idou hoi mathetai iou poioudin ho ouk ebestin) “Just look at (perceive) what your disciples are doing; It is what is not lawful;” They did not tell the truth. They could, not put a sickle in, to harvest the grain of a neighbor, but could pluck it to meet an hunger, under the law, Deu 23:25.
4) “To do upon the sabbath day.” (poiein en sabbaton) “To do (at all) on a sabbath day;” This prohibition was invented by he Pharisees, not written in the Mosaic Law. They had added it to the law, a thing God forbade, Pro 30:6. It was servile work only that was forbidden on the sabbath day.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(2) When the Pharisees saw it.In the position in which the narrative stands in the other two Gospels, the Pharisees would appear as belonging to the company that had come down from Jerusalem to watch and accuse the new Teacher (Luk. 5:17). He claimed the power to forgive sins, He ate and drank with publicans and sinners. Now they found that He was teaching men to dishonour the Sabbath, as He had already taught them in Jerusalem (Joh. 5:10; Joh. 5:16).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Not lawful upon the sabbath day The crime was not the walking, for they may not have walked more than a Sabbath day’s journey; but the plucking and the rubbing. Now this was done to satisfy actual hunger, and doubtless was their only obtainable food. It was truly, therefore, hardly more than to put one’s hands to the food upon a table. It may therefore be considered a striking instance in which the Jews had come to pervert the divine law in an over particularity about the letter.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 . The decalogue, which is of perpetual validity, commands the observance of one day in seven as Sabbath or rest, (for rest is the meaning of the word Sabbath,) but lays down no unchangeable law as to the particular day.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said to him, “Behold, your disciples do what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” ’
Some of the Pharisees became aware of what His disciples were doing. It may be that they had been walking with the disciples, professing interest in Jesus’ message, while carefully watching for any failures in the behaviour of His disciples, or it may be that it had simply been reported to them by people who saw it, bringing them hurriedly to the scene. Either way they pointed out that He and His disciples (as their Master He could be accounted responsible) were doing what was not lawful on the Sabbath Day.
‘What is not lawful to do.’ We should note that this is probably not just a comment, but an official warning. Proceedings could not be taken under the Law against ‘the untaught’ at the first offence. The culprits had first to be warned so as to ensure that they did know what the Law was. If the warning was then ignored, proceedings could be taken (compare Act 4:18 with Mat 5:17). Thus Jesus and His disciples were being warned that if it happened again proceedings would be taken. The opposition was hardening.
It should be noted that this was not a question of whether the Sabbath should be observed. All would have been agreed on that. It was a question of what should be interpreted as work, and who had the authority to determine it. On the whole the Jews delighted in the Sabbath and rejoiced in it. It set them apart as God’s people, and as behaving as God had behaved. But Pharisaic interpretation was strict (in the Qumran community they were even stricter). Jesus’ argument is that it is a matter of compassion, and the fact that One Was here Who could authoritatively declare what was allowed on the grounds of compassion.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The objection of the Pharisees:
v. 2. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day. The malicious faultfinders deliberately made a mountain out of a mole-hill and construed the action with their usual intolerance. The plucking to them became reaping, and the rubbing with the hands to remove the hulls in their eyes became threshing. There was no wrong done even from the standpoint of the strictest interpretation of the Jewish Law. But the Pharisees so construed it and took offense, incidentally accusing Christ as an accomplice for permitting the sacrilege. Christ’s answer:
v. 3. But He said unto them, Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him,
v. 4. how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
v. 5. Or have ye not read in the Law how on the Sabbath days the priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?
Jesus had a most disconcerting way of quoting Scripture to His enemies, which usually resulted in their chagrin and shameful rout. He has two examples for them: David, in fleeing before the wrath of Saul, came to the sanctuary of the Lord at Nob, 1Sa 21:1-6, where Ahimelech, the priest, gave him the show-bread, the bread of the countenance of God, from the table in the Holy Place. These consecrated bread-cakes were to be eaten by the priests only, Lev 24:8-9, and yet David, the great model of Jewish piety, ate of this hallowed bread with his men. And again: The priests, in the regular discharge of their duties, in sacrificing the burnt offerings in the morning and evening services of the Sabbath day, were technically transgressing the Sabbath law, with its absolute prohibition of work, thus, if one would argue from the standpoint of the Pharisees, actually profaning the Sabbath.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 12:2. When the Pharisees saw it, they said, &c. The Jews were allowed by the law, when they came into the standing corn of their neighbours, to pluck some ears, and eat them, Deu 23:25. But as they were by the same law forbid to reap on the sabbath-day, the Pharisees, perversely enough, accounted this action of the disciples to be a kind of reaping. They looked also upon the rubbing the ears of corn in their hands as a breach of the law, because they were not allowed by it to dress their victual on the sabbath-day. See Beausobre and Lenfant, Introduction, p. 159.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2 But when the Pharisees saw it , they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Ver. 2. Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful ] This was as the proverb is, Sus Minervam, a pig is Minerva, when blind Pharisees will be teaching Christ how the Sabbath is to be sanctified. Not Hebrews only, but also Greeks and barbarians rested from work on the seventh day: witness Josephus, Clement Alexander, and Eusebius. Howbeit, to the Hebrews at Mount Sinai, God, for a special favour, made known his holy Sabbath, Neh 9:14 , commanding them to do no servile work therein, Lev 23:7-8 . This excludes not works of piety, charity, and necessity, such as was this of the disciples in the text. The Jews in their superstition would not fight on the Sabbath, and therefore lost their chief city to the Romans, under the command of Pompey, who took the advantage of the day to do his utmost then against them. a In later times they grew more rigid in this point: for on the Sabbath they would not spit, ease nature, get out of an outhouse, if by mishap they had fallen into it, as that Jew of Tewkesbury. This ever was and is the guise of hypocrites, to strain at gnats and swallow camels. Witness our modern Pharisees, the monks and Jesuits, who stumble at straws and leap over mountains. Their schoolmen determined that it was a less crime to kill a thousand men than for a poor man to mend his shoe on the Sabbath day. b
a
b Levius esse crimen mille homines iugulare, quam semel die Dominico pauperi calceum consuere. Pareus in loc.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 12:2 . . . . The emphasis here lies on the last word. To help oneself, when hungry, with the hand was humanely allowed in the Deuteronomic law (Deu 23:25 ), only to use the sickle was forbidden as involving waste. But according to the scribes what was lawful on other days was unlawful on Sabbath, because plucking ears was reaping . “Metens Sabbato vel tantillum, reus est” (Lightfoot rendering a passage from the Talmud). Luke adds , rubbing with the hands. He took the offence to be threshing . Microscopic offence in either case, proving prim facie malice in the fault-finders. But honest objection is not inconceivable to one who remembers the interdict placed by old Scottish piety on the use of the razor on Sabbath. We must be just even to Pharisees.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
the Pharisees. See App-120.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 12:2. , …, behold, etc.) They mean to say, The Master ought to be accountable for what the disciples do in His very presence. Behold! They wish Him to issue an immediate prohibition.- , that which is not lawful) They do not put the matter doubtfully, and they are therefore rebuked severely in Mat 12:3; Mat 12:5; Mat 12:7. The proposition [may be put either affirmatively or negatively], It is lawful, or It is not lawful. A false reproof was more common at that time, than a true one is now.-, to do) referring not to the eating, but the plucking.- , on a Sabbath) The subject of the Sabbath occupies great part of the Evangelic history.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Behold: Mat 12:10, Exo 20:9-11, Exo 23:12, Exo 31:15-17, Exo 35:2, Num 15:32-36, Isa 58:13, Mar 3:2-5, Luk 6:6-11, Luk 13:10-17, Luk 23:56, Joh 5:9-11, Joh 5:16, Joh 5:17, Joh 7:21-24, Joh 9:14-16
Reciprocal: Deu 23:25 – then thou mayest Luk 6:2 – Why Joh 5:10 – it is not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
12:2
The Pharisees knew about this law and hence could not accuse them of trespass. They were so eager to find fault, however, that they charged them with breaking the law of the sabbath.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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.
[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, Deu 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, etc.; to shear sheep, to dye wool,” etc. 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.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 12:2. But when the Pharisees saw it. They were lying in wait for something as a ground of opposition.
They said unto him. Luke represents the objection as made to the disciples, both were probably addressed.
That which it is not lawful to do on the Sabbath. It was lawful on other days, all admitted; but the Pharisees claimed it was not lawful on the Sabbath. Plucking grain on the Sabbath was construed by the Rabbins into a kind of harvesting. This departure from their formal legalism was magnified by the Pharisees into a breaking of Gods law.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The persons finding fault with this action of the disciples, the Pharisees; many of whom accompanied our Saviour, not out of any good intentions, but only with a design to cavil at, and quarrel with, everything that either Christ or is disciples said or did.
Observe, 2. The action which they found fault with: The disciples plucking off the ears of corn on the sabbath-day.
Where note, It is not theft which the disciples are accused of by the Pharisees! for to take, in our necessity, so much of our neighbour’s goods, as we may reasonably suppose that if he were present, and knew our circumstances, he would give us, is no theft: but it was a servile labour on the sabbath, in gathering the corn, that the Pharisees scrupled; plucking the ears was looked upon as a sort of reaping.
Learn thence, How zealous hypocrites are for the lesser things of the law, whilst they neglect the weightier; and how superstitiously addicted to the outward ceremonies, placing all holiness in the observation of them.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 12:2-4. The Pharisees said, Thy disciples do what is not lawful The law of Moses so expressly allowed the plucking ears of corn as one passed through a field, that, malignant as they were, they pretended not to find fault with the action itself, (see Deu 23:25,) but they were perverse enough to think this to be a kind of reaping and dressing the grain, which was indeed forbidden on the sabbath. But he said Have ye not read what, in a case of like necessity, David did, and his followers? and his necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. How he entered into the house of God Into the tabernacle: the temple not being yet built. The meaning cannot be, that David himself went into the very tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither: but it was into the house or chamber of the high-priest that he entered, situated beside the tabernacle, and called the house of God on that account. See note on 1Sa 21:3-6. Thus the apartment in which the High-priest Eli and his servant Samuel slept, is called the house of the Lord, 1Sa 3:15. And did eat the show-bread Gr. , the bread of exhibition, or, the bread set forth. The Hebrew expression,
, is literally, the bread of the face, or, of the presence, so called, because it stood continually before the face, (so to speak,) of Jehovah; that is, before the ark, where God was peculiarly present. It consisted of twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, and was set every sabbath day, by the priest who served that week, on the golden table that was in the holy place of the tabernacle or temple. When the new loaves were brought, the stale ones were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. See notes on Exo 25:30; Lev 24:6-9.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Pharisees criticized Jesus’ disciples for doing what was unlawful under Pharisaic tradition, namely, "reaping" on the Sabbath. [Note: Mishnah Shabbath 7:2.] The Mishnah listed 39 categories of activity that qualified as work on the Sabbath.
"The Mishnah includes Sabbath-desecration among those most heinous crimes for which a man was to be stoned." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:52. Mishnah Shabbath 7:4.]