Biblia

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 12:5

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 12:5

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

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

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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

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

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

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

5. Or have ye not read in the law,how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane thesabbathby doing “servile work.”

and are blameless?Thedouble offerings required on the sabbath day (Nu28:9) 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 agood deal of servile work on the part of the priests; not to speak ofcircumcision, which, when the child’s eighth day happened to fall ona sabbath, had to be performed by the priests on that day. (See onJoh 7:22, 23).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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

how that on the sabbath days, the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless. There were many things, which, according to the Jewish canons, the priests might do on the sabbath day; particularly they might slay the sacrifice: it was a rule with them,

, “that slaying drives away the sabbath” u. They might also knead, make, and bake the showbread on the sabbath day: their general rule was, as R. Akiba says, that what was possible to be done on the evening of the sabbath, did not drive away the sabbath; but what was not possible to be done on the sabbath eve, did drive away the sabbath w: so they might kill the passover, sprinkle its blood, wipe its inwards, and burn the fat on the sabbath day x, with many other things. What exculpated these men was, that what they did was done in the temple, and for the service of it, upon which an emphasis is put; and agrees with their canons, which say, that there is no prohibition in the sanctuary;

, “that which is forbidden to be done on the sabbath, is lawful to be done in the sanctuary” y: and whereas, it might be objected to the disciples of Christ, that they were not priests; and what they did was not in the temple, but in the fields; to this it is replied, in the following words:

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

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

1) “Or have ye not read in the law,” (e ouk anegnote en to nomo) “Or did you all not read in the law,” or understand the precedent meaning thereof, that double offerings required on the sabbath, plus the fresh baked shewbread, without some service work by the priests and their aids, Num 28:9; Lev 24:5; 1Ch 9:32.

2) “How that on the sabbath days,” (hoti tois sabbasin) “That on the sabbaths,” as a matter of requirement, though they did not seem to understand it.

3) “The priests in the temple profane the sabbath,” (hoi heireis en to hiero to sabbaton bebelousin) “The priests in the temple profane the sabbath,” in performing circumcision for a child (male), on the eighth day after his birth, Joh 7:22-23.

4) “And are blameless?” (kai anaitioi eisin) “And are guiltless?” are held guiltless, without blame, though they profane the sabbath? Under certain circumstances, such as described above.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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) Now 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.

(78) “ Que les exercices de piete ne sont point contraires les uns aux autres, mais s’accordent bien ensemble;” — “that the exercises of godliness are not opposed to each other, but agree well together.”

(79) “ Quand ils s’employent a oeuvres qui tendent a l’honneur de Dieu;” — “when they are employed in works which tend to the honor of God.”

(80) “ Ainsi Christ accorde estre vray, ce qui ne l’est pas de faict, mais qui pourroit sembler l’estre en apparence a gens qui ne scavent pas bien iuger et discerner les choses;” — “thus Christ admits that to be true which is not so in reality, but which might appear to be so to persons who do not know how to judge and distinguish matters properly.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(5) The priests in the temple profane the sabbath.The work of the priests, as described, e.g., in Num. 28:9, viz., slaying victims, placing the shewbread, involved an amount of labour which, in work of any other kind, would have broken the Sabbath rest; yet no one blamed the priests, for they were serving in the Temple of Jehovah.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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

It appears from the passage in 1 Samuel xxi, that it was fresh bread which David ate. But by the law (Lev 24:8) the fresh bread was set on the table on the Sabbath. Hence, Alford infers that our Lord might have drawn a double argument from David’s case in regard to the Sabbath.

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

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“Or have you not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?”

But he also has a second argument (which is not mentioned in Mark and Luke), and that is that the priests in performing their functions of worship are constantly technically breaking the Sabbath by carrying things, slaying sacrifices, and so on. And yet they are looked on as guiltless because the authority of the Temple overrides the Sabbath Law. His point therefore is partly that everything is not just a matter of ‘black and white’. There are various shades of grey. And so each case needs to be examined on its merits.

We can understand why Mark and Luke omit this section. To most of the people to whom they were writing the Temple ordinances were unimportant and not significant. To Jews and Jewish Christians, however, they would be of great importance, especially before the Temple was destroyed.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Mat 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 Num 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. See Macknight and Calmet.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 12:5 . ] Num 28:9 .

] that is, if one were consistently to judge according to your precepts, which forbid every sort of work on the Sabbath as being a desecration of that day. For ., profanant , comp. Act 24:6 , and see Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 558.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

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

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

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

in the law. See note on Mat 5:17. Compare Num 28:9, Num 28:10 and App-143.

the sabbath. (Num 28:9, Num 28:10. Compare Neh 13:17. Eze 24:21. Joh 7:22, Joh 7:23.) There were more sacrifices on the sabbath than on any other day.

profane. Our Eng. word “profane” = far from the temple. The Greek word here = to trample down and thus treat as common. Compare Act 24:6.

blameless = guiltless, as in Mat 12:7. Greek. anaitios. Occurs only here and Mat 12:7.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

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

Fuente: The Greek Testament

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

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

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

on: Num 28:9, Num 28:10, Joh 7:22, Joh 7:23

profane: Neh 13:17, Eze 24:21

Reciprocal: Mat 9:13 – go Mat 12:3 – Have Luk 6:3 – Have Joh 5:18 – broken

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

12:5

To profane means to make a secular use of a thing. Num 28:9-10 shows the priests performing the manual labor of handling an animal in the sacrifice. Joh 7:22-23 tells of a child being circumcised even on the sabbath day. The surgical act of performing circumcision was a manual one and hence technically violated the sabbath law. But it was understood that if an emergency or positive commandment called for some physical act even on the sabbath day, then the regular law as to its observance did not apply or bind the parties to its usual observance.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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?

[The priests in the Temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless.] “The servile work which is done in the holy things is not servile. The same works which were done in the Temple on the other days were done also on the sabbath.” And There is no sabbatism at all in the Temple.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 12:5. The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless? Peculiar to Matthew. On the Sabbath the priests must change the shewbread, and offer double offerings. That construction of the law which condemned His disciples, would condemn this as a profanation, yet the priests were blameless. Works of necessity on the Sabbath are not only permitted, but may become a duty (see Mat 12:6).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 5

Profane the Sabbath; perform labor, which, under other circumstances, would be a profanation of the Sabbath.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple {b} profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

(b) When the priests do God’s service on the sabbath day, they do not break the law: much less does the Lord of the Sabbath break the sabbath.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus’ second argument came from Num 28:9-10. Technically the priests broke the Sabbath every week by changing the consecrated bread and by offering the burnt offerings the Law specified for that day. However the Law considered the priests guiltless for doing this "work" on the Sabbath.

Jesus claimed that something greater than the temple was present. He used the neuter "something" to refer to His authority because He wanted to stress a quality about the temple, its authority, that He as an individual shared with the temple. [Note: Turner, p. 21.] What is greater than the temple as a symbol of authority is Messiah, a superior authority. Another point of comparison was that God came to meet with His people in the temple and in Immanuel.

In Jesus’ argument the temple was greater than the Sabbath. However, now something greater than the temple was there, namely, Messiah, and specifically, His authority. Consequently Messiah takes precedence over the Sabbath. The Pharisees not only mishandled the Law, but they also failed to perceive who Jesus was. As the temple’s authority shielded the priests from guilt, so Jesus’ authority as Messiah shielded His disciples from guilt. Jesus was not comparing but contrasting the priests’ authority and His authority.

"In truth, the reason why David was blameless in eating the shew-bread was the same as that which made the Sabbath-labour of the priests lawful. The Sabbath-Law was not one merely of rest, but of rest for worship. The Service of the Lord was the object in view. The priests worked on the Sabbath, because this service was the object of the Sabbath; and David was allowed to eat of the shew-bread, not because there was danger to life from starvation, but because he pleaded that he was on the service of the Lord and needed this provision. The disciples, when following the Lord, were similarly on the service of the Lord; ministering to Him was more than ministering in the Temple, for He was greater than the Temple." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:58.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)