Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 12:10
And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
10. his hand withered ] i. e. paralysed or affected by atrophy. St Luke has “his right hand.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 12:10
And behold there was a man which had his hand withered.
The withered hand
I. The person to whom the command in our text is addressed.
1. TO a man who was hopelessly incapable of obeying. The hand had lost the moisture of life. Christs power is displayed on our inability.
2. To one who was perfectly willing.
II. The person who gave the command. He said.
III. The command itself. The stretching forth of the hand was-
1. An act of faith.
2. An act of decision. The Pharisees around him.
IV. This mans obedience.
1. He did not do something else in preference to what Jesus commanded.
2. He did not raise any questions.
3. He was told to stretch out his hand, and he did so.
V. The result of this stretching out of the mans hand in obedience to the command.
1. The healing was manifest.
2. It was immediate.
3. It was permanent. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The withered hand
I. A common calamity.
II. The man could do nothing.
III. He knew he could do nothing.
IV. He is a type of those whose usefulness is spoiled by some defect-the crotchety, ill-tempered, hasty, niggardly man.
V. The causes of this withered hand.
1. Disuse.
2. Multiplied anxieties and cares.
3. Contact with poisonous matters-questionable company or pleasures.
VI. The cure. The services of the synagogue not enough. The solemn ritual, the round of confession and sacrifice, of singing and the word, each of these was a help to the healing power, but nothing more-hands that pointed and lifted the sufferer nearer to the great Restorer. At last, before the man there stands the living Christ, as He stands before all who seek Him. Then swiftly comes the being made whole. That living Presence sought; that great Love appealed to; that mighty Power trusted; His word waited for, believed, obeyed. Thus may every withered hand be stretched forth perfectly whole. (Mark Guy Pearse.)
The use of means
It is one of the sophisms of every age Go urge the Spirits efficacy, as a plea for the neglect of means. It is folly and presumption to think that, because power is with God and from God, efforts should not be in ourselves. (Dr. Manton.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. A man which had his hand withered.] Probably through a partial paralysis. The man’s hand was withered; but God’s mercy had still preserved to him the use of his feet: He uses them to bring him to the public worship of God, and Jesus meets and heals him there. How true is the proverb – It is never so ill with us, but it might be much worse!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark, repeating the same history, saith, Mar 3:1,2, There was a man which had a withered hand, and they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day, that they might accuse him. So saith Luk 6:6,7, only he addeth that it was his right hand, which made his affliction greater. They asked him not that they might rightly inform themselves, but that they might accuse him to their magistrates, that had power in those cases, for the violation of the sabbath was, amongst the Jews, a capital crime.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And behold, there was a man which had his hand withered,…. Or dry; the juices were dried up, the nerves and sinews contracted, so that it was of no manner of use to him: Luke says, it was his right hand, which was so much the worse; and means not only his hand, but the whole arm. Such a case is mentioned in the Talmud a, “it happened to one, “wewrz hvbyv, that his arm was dry, or withered. Jerom says b, in the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Hebionites used, this man is said to be a plasterer, and so might possibly come by his misfortune through his business; and being a man that got his bread by his hand labour, the case was the more affecting. This account is introduced with a “behold!” it being remarkable that such a case should offer so opportunely, of showing his divine power in healing such a disorder; and of his authority, as the Son of man, over the sabbath; and of putting to silence his enemies, the Pharisees: and who, upon seeing such an object, put the following question to him;
and they asked him, saying, is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? and which was put, not for information sake, as willing to be instructed in this point; for their determinations were, that healing was not lawful on such a day; nor were any means to be made use of for that purpose: if a man received a cure accidentally, it was very well; but no methods were to be taken with intention: as for instance c;
“if a man had an ailment in his throat, he might not gargle it with oil, but he might swallow a large quantity of oil,
“and “if he was healed, he was healed” (i.e. it was very well, it was no breach of the sabbath); they may not chew mastic, nor rub the teeth with spice, on the sabbath day, , “when it is intended “for healing”; but if it is intended for the savour of his mouth, it is free.”
There are several things they allowed might be done on the sabbath; but then they did not reckon them to come under the notion of healing.
“Three d things R. Ishmael bar Jose said he had heard from R. Matthia ben Charash; they might let blood for the stranguary on the sabbath day; one that was bit by a mad dog, they might give him hog’s liver to eat; and he that had an ailment in his mouth, they might put spice to it on the sabbath day: but the wise men say of these, that there is not in them , anything of medicine.”
Indeed, in case of extreme danger of life they did admit of the use of medicine, by the prescription of a physician e.
“Danger of life drives away the sabbath; wherefore, if there is any danger in a sick person, it is lawful to kindle a fire for him, c. and they may kill, and bake, and boil: and though there may be no apparent danger, only a doubt of danger as when one physician says there is a necessity, and another physician says there is none, they may profane the sabbath for him.”
Hence it is very clear with what view the Pharisees asked Christ this question; and that it was, as the evangelist says, that they might accuse him: either of cruelty and weakness, should he answer in the negative, that either he was not able to heal the poor man before him, or wanted compassion; or should he answer in the affirmative, as they expected, and act upon it, then they might have wherewith to charge him before the sanhedrim as a violator of the sabbath, and of their canons concerning it.
a T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 40. 1. b In loc. c Maimon. Hilchot Sabbat, c. 21. sect. 24. d T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 84. 1. Vid. Misn. Yoma, e. 8. sect. 7. e Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora pr. neg. 65. Maimon. in Misn. Sabbat, c. 18. sect. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Is it lawful? ( ). The use of in direct questions is really elliptical and seems an imitation of the Hebrew (Robertson, Grammar, p. 916). See also Mt 19:3. It is not translated in English.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Is it lawful ? [ ] . The eij can hardly be rendered into English. It gives an indeterminate, hesitating character to the question : I would like to know if, etc.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered,” (kai idou anthropos cheira achon kseran) “And behold there was a man (in there) with a withered hand,” an hand that was paralyzed, a dry or dried-up hand, without feeling, a useless hand for a working man; and Luk 6:6 states a “right hand.”
2) “And they asked him, saying,” (kai eperotesan auton legontes) “And they repeatedly questioned him inquiring;” They questioned Him for entrapment purposes, observing Him, Mr 3:2.
3) “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?” (ei eksestin tois sabbasin therapeusai) “is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” Their inquiry was one of devious nature, with ulterior motives, involving all sabbaths of the Jews.
4) “That they might accuse him.” (hina katagoresosin autou) “In order that they might accuse him,” of being a lawbreaker, an immoral and unethical person; or were they to accuse Him of not doing good on the sabbath, if He did not heal the paralytic? They likely had fixed their minds to accuse Him, no matter whether He healed or did not heal the man, Act 7:51-53.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. They asked him, saying. Mark and Luke say only that they watched what our Lord would do; but Matthew states more clearly that they also attacked him by words. It is probable, that some others had been previously cured on Sabbath-days; and hence they take occasion to ask if he believes it to be lawful for him to do again what he had formerly done. They ought to have considered whether it was a work of God, or of man, to restore a withered hand by a mere touch, or by a single word. When God appointed the Sabbath, he did not lay down a law for himself, or impose upon himself any restraint from performing operations on the Sabbath, when he saw it to be proper, in the same manner as on other days. It was excessive folly, therefore, to call this in question, and thus to prescribe rules for God himself, and to restrain the freedom of his operations.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(10) There was a man which had his hand withered.Two facts are implied: (1.) That the Pharisees expected our Lord to heal the man thus afflicted. They knew that commonly the mere sight of suffering of this kind called out His sympathy, and that the sympathy passed into act. (2.) That they had resolved, ii He did so heal, to make it the ground of a definite accusation before the local tribunal, the judgment of Mat. 5:21. The casuistry of the Rabbis allowed the healing art to be practised on the Sabbath in cases of life and death, but the withered hand, a permanent infirmity, obviously did not come under that category.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34. WITHERED HAND RESTORED, Mat 12:9-21 .
10. His hand withered A case of paralysis, by which the hand was shrunken away, and the nerves of motion had become incapable of action. This has ever been regarded as an incurable disease. They asked him Luke informs us that they were watching our Lord’s movements that they might be able to accuse him of breaking the Sabbath. That they might accuse him The position of the minds of the accusers of our Lord was peculiar and strange. They did not doubt that he was about to work a miracle; they expected it. But they are intending to make out that his miracles are contrary to the divine law, and so immoral. They would then have some ground for saying that he worked miracles by a diabolical power; which charge they did soon begin to make.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And behold, a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” so that they might accuse him.’
As usual Matthew sticks to the bare facts. There was a man with a withered hand there and they challenged Him as to whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. Note their assumption that He could do it, which underlines their hypocrisy. They knew what He could do and they still opposed Him. They were even more unforgivable than the towns (Mat 11:20-24) for they had had the opportunity to think deeply about it. And here their sole aim was to accuse Him. He might have wriggled rather unsatisfactorily out of the previous challenge, but this time if He healed they had got Him. The interpreters of the Law were quite clear on the fact that it was not right to heal on the Sabbath except when life was in danger, and then only to the minimum amount required to preserve life.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 12:10. And they asked him, &c. That is, the Pharisees, Mat 12:14 who, when they saw Jesus going to perform the cure, put this question to him, Is it lawful, &c.? by which they declared in the strongest terms their opinion of its unlawfulness: but in so doing they had no intention to prevent the action which they knew he was resolved upon, but to render him odious to the common people; expecting that he would openly declare such things lawful, in opposition to the definitions of the doctors, who had all determined that to perform cures upon the sabbath was a violation of the Holy rest: or, if he should give no answer to their question, as it implied an affirmation of the unlawfulness of what he was about to attempt, they thought it would render him inexcusable, and give the better colour to their accusation. The word , rendered to heal, is very extensive, and properly includes all the care, labour, and attendance, which the case of any distempered or wounded person can require; as I apprehend our English word cure also does, though through the poverty of our language we are forced to apply it so those miraculous effects, which were so instantaneously produced by the healing word of our blessed Redeemer. What Syriac word the Pharisees might use, we know not: but it is plain that the question is put in verygeneral terms, which best favoured their base purpose of founding an accusation on our Lord’s answer. See Doddridge and Macknight.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 12:10 . The nature of the affection of the withered hand, in which there was a defective circulation (1Ki 13:4 ; Zec 11:17 ; Joh 5:3 ), cannot be further defined. It is certain, however, that what was wrong was not merely a deficiency in the power of moving the hand, in which case the cure would be sufficiently explained by our Lord’s acting upon the will and the muscular force (Keim).
The traditions forbade healing on the Sabbath, except in cases where life was in danger. Wetstein and Schoettgen on this passage.
] in the New Testament (Winer, p. 474 [E. T. 639]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 214 [E. T. 249]) is so applied, in opposition to classical usage (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 202 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 508, 511), that it directly introduces the words containing the question. Comp. Mat 19:3 ; Luk 13:22 ; Luk 22:49 ; Act 1:6 ; occurring also in the LXX., not in the Apocrypha. However, in the order of ideas in the mind of the questioner is to be found the logical connection, which has occasioned and which will explain the indirectly interrogative use of ( I would like to know , or some such expression), just as we Germans are also in the habit of asking at once: ob das erlaubt ist ? The character of the questions introduced by is that of uncertainty and hesitation (Hartung, 1. 1; Khner, II. 2, p. 1032), which in this instance is quite in keeping with the tempting which the questioners had in view. Fritzsche’s purely indirect interpretation (“interrogarunt eum hoc modo, an liceret ,” etc.) is precluded by , and the passages where the question is preceded by some form of address such as in Act 1:6 ; Luk 22:49 .
. ] before the local court ( , Mat 5:21 ) in the town, and that on the charge of teaching to violate the law of the Sabbath.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
Ver. 10. Which had his hand withered ] So have all covetous caitiffs, who may well be said, amidst all their hoards, to have no current coin, no quick silver. They sit abrood upon what they have got, as Euclio in the Comedian: and when, by laying out their money, they might “lay hold on eternal life,” they will not he drawn to it. But as Alphonsus, king of Spain, when he stood to be king of the Romans, was prevented by his hopes, because he, being a great mathematician, was drawing lines (saith the chronicler) when he should have drawn out his purse; so here.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10. ] This narrative is found in Mark and Luke with considerable variation in details from our text, those two Evangelists agreeing however with one another. In both these accounts, they ( the Scribes and Pharisees , Luke) were watching our Lord to see whether He would heal on the Sabbath: and He ( knowing their thoughts , Luke) ordered the man to stand forth in the midst, and asked them the question here given. The question about the animal does not occur in either of them, but in Luk 14:5 , on a similar occasion. The additional particulars given are very interesting. By Luke, it was the right hand; by Mark, our Lord looked round on them , : and the Herodians were joined with the Pharisees in their counsel against Him. See notes on Luke.
= Mark, of which the use had been lost and the vital powers withered.
Mat 12:10 . , here, as in Mat 8:2 , Mat 9:2 , introducing in a lively manner the story. , a dry hand, possibly a familiar expression in Hebrew pathology (De Wette); useless, therefore a serious enough affliction for a working man (a mason, according to Hebrew Gospel, Jerome ad loc. ), especially if it was the right hand, as Luke states. But the cure was not urgent for a day, could stand over; therefore a good test case as between rival conceptions of Sabbath law. . The Pharisees asked a question suggested by the case, as if eager to provoke Jesus and put Him to the proof. Mark says they observed Him, waiting for Him to take the initiative. The former alternative suits the hypothesis of immediate temporal sequence. , etc. After we expect, according to classic usage, a direct question without . The is in its place in Mark (Mar 12:2 ), and the influence of his text may be suspected (Weiss) as explaining the incorrectness in Matthew. But in direct questions is not unusual in N. T. (Mat 19:3 ; Luk 13:23 ; Luk 22:49 ), vide Winer, 57, 2, and Meyer ad loc. In Mark’s account Christ, not the Pharisees, puts the question.
man. Greek. anthropos. App-123.
on the sabbath days. This was the first of seven miracles wrought on the sabbath. See Mar 1:21-31. Luk 13:11; Luk 14:2. Joh 5:8, Joh 5:9; Joh 9:14.
that = in order that.
10.] This narrative is found in Mark and Luke with considerable variation in details from our text, those two Evangelists agreeing however with one another. In both these accounts, they (the Scribes and Pharisees, Luke) were watching our Lord to see whether He would heal on the Sabbath:-and He (knowing their thoughts, Luke) ordered the man to stand forth in the midst, and asked them the question here given. The question about the animal does not occur in either of them, but in Luk 14:5, on a similar occasion. The additional particulars given are very interesting. By Luke,-it was the right hand; by Mark,-our Lord looked round on them , :-and the Herodians were joined with the Pharisees in their counsel against Him. See notes on Luke.
= Mark, of which the use had been lost and the vital powers withered.
Mat 12:10. , …, there was a man, etc.) He had either come thither of his own accord, that he might be healed, or else he had been brought by others with an insidious design.- , that they might accuse Him) As if He had broken the Sabbath, which was then greatly respected even by courts of law. See Mat 12:14.
which: 1Ki 13:4-6, Zec 11:17, Joh 5:3
Is it: Mat 19:3, Mat 22:17, Mat 22:18, Luk 13:14, Luk 14:3-6, Luk 20:22, Joh 5:10, Joh 9:16
that: Isa 32:6, Isa 59:4, Isa 59:13, Luk 6:6, Luk 6:7, Luk 11:54, Luk 23:2, Luk 23:14, Joh 8:6
Reciprocal: Mat 12:2 – Behold Mar 3:4 – Is it Joh 5:9 – and on
2:10
Jesus was not long in meeting such an opportunity as referred to in the preceding verse. A hand withered means one that had been cut off from obtaining its normal share of moisture and nourishment from the circulation. The condition would be caused by some permanent obstruction that could not be cured by natural means. The account here says they asked him, while the accounts of the same event in both Mar 3:2 and Luk 6:7 say they watohed him. There is no contradiction for the last two passages explains the first to mean that they were asking that question in their minds. This conclusion is borne out by the 8th verse of Luke 6 which says, “But he knew their thoughts.” The idea is that they had an accusing suspicion of him in their minds that Jesus would probably heal the man, then they could charge him with breaking the sabbath.
And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
[Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?] these are not so much the words of inquirers, as deniers. For these were their decisions in that case; “Let not those that are in health use physic on the sabbath day. Let not him that labours under a pain in his loins, anoint the place affected with oil and vinegar; but with oil he may, so it be not oil of roses, etc. He that hath the toothache, let him not swallow vinegar to spit it out again; but he may swallow it, so he swallow it down. He that hath a sore throat, let him not gargle it with oil: but he may swallow down the oil, whence if he receive a cure it is well. Let no man chew mastich, or rub his teeth with spice for a cure; but if he do this to make his mouth sweet, it is allowed. They do not put wine into a sore eye. They do not apply fomentations or oils to the place affected,” etc. All which things, however they were not applicable to the cure wrought by Christ (with a word only), yet they afforded them an occasion of cavilling: who, indeed, were sworn together thus to quarrel him; that canon affording them a further pretence, “This certainly obtains, that whatsoever was possible to be done on the sabbath eve driveth not away the sabbath.” To which sense he speaks, Luk 13:14.
Let the reader see, if he be at leisure, what diseases they judge dangerous, and what physic is to be used on the sabbath.
Mat 12:10. A man having a withered hand. It was not only paralyzed, but dried up. According to Luke, the right hand; the language used by Mark implies that this was the effect of accident or disease. There is no evidence that the man was aware that the Pharisees wished to make use of him to accuse Jesus.
And they asked him, The other accounts tell us only of their watching Him, to accuse Him, and lead us to infer that our Lord, knowing their thoughts, took the first active step by calling upon the man to stand forth, and that then this questioning took place.
Is it lawful to heal, etc. This question was put that they might accuse him, might find in His teaching and then in the act of mercy they expected would follow, the basis for a formal charge before the local tribunal of which they were themselves members (see Mat 12:14).
Mat 12:10. There was a man which had his hand withered The nerves and sinews of it being shrunk up, so that it was entirely useless. And they Namely, the scribes and Pharisees, who had either mixed with the crowd that followed Jesus, or were in the synagogue before he came; asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? They made this inquiry merely that they might find matter whereon to ground an accusation against him. For they fully expected he would say that it was lawful, in opposition to the doctrine of their learned men, who accounted performing cures on the sabbath a violation of the holy rest of that day. Accordingly Mark says, They watched him whether he would heal, &c. So gross was their hypocrisy, that they resolved to raise an outcry against him, if on the sabbath he should give a lame man the use of his hand, while they themselves were profaning it by an action which would have polluted any day; were seeking an opportunity to murder one who had never done them any harm, but had been and was incessantly doing them good!
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments