CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 12:1. Pluck the ears of corn.—See Deuteronomy 23:25.
Matthew 12:3. What David did.—David’s action was not an apparent contravention of the Sabbath-law, but an apparent contravention of the temple or tabernacle-law. But our Lord reasons from equals to equals, or, on the principle of equivalents. The temple and the Sabbath were equivalent or equal in sanctity (Morison).
Matthew 12:4. Did eat the shewbread.—The old bread that was removed on the Sabbath morning from the golden table to make way for the fresh loaves (Leviticus 24:5-9; 1 Samuel 21:6).
Matthew 12:5. Profane the Sabbath.—Viz. when they do the work of the temple; in removing, e.g. the old shewbread and replacing it with the “hot,” and in offering up the sacrificial lambs, etc. It was, indeed, one of the sayings of the Rabbins, “There is no Sabbath-keeping in the temple.” Thus, if all work on the Sabbath “profaned” the Sabbath, as the Pharisees maintained, the priests were guilty of continual profanation (Morison).
Matthew 12:7. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.—Moral and not positive duties, these made up the true life of religion, and were alone acceptable to God. It was because they had inverted the right relation of the two that they had, in this instance, condemned those whom our Lord now declares to have been in this respect absolutely guiltless (Plumptre).
Matthew 12:8. Lord even of the Sabbath day.—A prophetic intimation cleared up by the event, that the law of the Sabbath would be changed, as it has now been under the gospel, not by any alteration in the proportion of time due to God, but in the position of the day; by the transfer of it from the seventh day of the week to the first, in memory of the resurrection of the Son of man (Wordsworth).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 12:1-8
Sabbatical needs.—The strife and opposition of the last chapter seem to be continued in this. Animated probably by what we are told of there, certain Pharisees here come forward to make an attack in words on the Saviour of mankind. That attack itself, in the first place; the reply it received at the time; the instruction it afterwards led to, are the main features of the story which follows.
I. The attack itself.—The occasion of this was the action of the disciples when walking with their Master on one particular Sabbath-day through the “cornfields.” “Being hungered”—a point specially noted—they plucked a portion of the standing corn as they passed; and “rubbing it in their hands,” (Luke 6:1), ate the grain obtained in this way. Although such use of the corn was expressly sanctioned in Deuteronomy 23:25, the “plucking” and “rubbing” necessary for this purpose were considered by the Pharisees to be sufficiently near to “reaping” and “threshing” to constitute them “secondary” violations of the fourth commandment. They, therefore, accused His disciples unto Him of having so done (Matthew 12:2). Nothing is said of the fact that the disciples were hungry; nothing of the fact (for so it seems to have been) that the disciples only had thus partaken of corn; all the supposed blame of all done, is virtually charged upon Him. “Why is it that Thou dost thus permit Thy disciples to do what ought not to be done?”
II. The primary reply to this attack corresponded to it in every respect. It did so as to persons. Only the disciples had been avowedly blamed. Only the disciples are avowedly defended. It did so as to purport. What the question implied was that they had broken the law and were guilty. What the reply implied was that they were “guiltless” (end of Matthew 12:7), and had not broken the law. It did so, also, as to method of proof. The Pharisees had aimed at their point by appealing tacitly to a method of interpreting the law, which certain later Israelites among themselves had designed and invented. According to this way of interpretation, it was breaking the law even for a hungry man to do anything which could be considered even an approach to such things as “reaping” and “threshing” on the Sabbath day. The Saviour, in this reply, therefore, appealed in turn to other methods of understanding the law. Notably, on the one hand, to that adopted in one particular case, where one of the most pious and revered of their ancestors, David the king, with the full sanction of the priests of his day (1 Samuel 21:3-6), had done exactly as had been done now by the disciples of Christ, viz., set aside a strict ceremonial observance where it was necessary to do so for the preservation of life. Also, on the other hand, to the interpretation practically adopted in a whole collection of cases of a similar kind, as when the “priests in the temple, e.g. the acknowledged examples and guides of the people in the interpretation of the law, constantly did that in the discharge of their duties, under the law, which “profaned the Sabbath” in fact, and which yet, being necessary, was not considered to profane it in law. In all these, and that of David before, the obvious principle was that that is not to be regarded as rebellion which cannot be avoided. Exactly the same principle applied to—and cleared—the disciples.
III. The further instruction.—Although these most legitimate tu quoques had thus fully silenced the accusers of the disciples, they had not been equally successful in instructing the disciples themselves. They had only shown, as it were, the negative side, viz., that it was neither right nor necessary to insist rigorously on the absolute letter of the law. For the sake of His disciples, therefore, in the first instance—and not without an eye in all probability to many others in subsequent years—the Saviour adds what we may consider a few words in briefest outline, on the positive side of the matter. If not in the mere letter, how then were God’s ordinances to be observed? On this question He appears to give a short succession of rules. The first rule is to look upon it as a question of degree. The physical life of man is a greater thing in itself than the mere physical rest of the Sabbath. So also were the positive enactments of the temple service. “There was one”—there was “that” (R. V., both statements are true)—which was “greater” than these. They must carry that principle out. The question must be settled by reference to that “greatest” of all. The second rule was to look upon the point to be settled as being also a question of kind. How were they to determine the relative greatness of an appointment? By its relative capacity for effecting the good purpose of God. What God had in view in His ordinances about men was their welfare, not their injury; their profit, not their loss; increasing their happiness, not merely restricting their liberty; “showing mercy” towards them, rather than exacting “sacrifice” from them. Let them judge accordingly, therefore, in regard to all His ordinances on this question of “greater” and “less.” That was the truest method of observance which corresponded most truly to the merciful objects in view. Lastly, let them consider to whom both these principles would conduct them at last. Who was this “greater than” the “temple?” This greatest of all? Who but the Saviour Himself of whom and of whose work all these were but shadows and types? And why was He, in this way, the greatest of all? Because He was, in Himself and His work, the very embodiment, and secret, and seal of all God’s fullest purposes of mercy to the children of men—“Lord of the Sabbath” because Lord of all that was for the good of mankind.
From the points thus settled certain further points, having special reference to the two here specially mentioned types of the Sabbath and the temple, seem to arise, viz:—
1. That the types in question differ widely in character.—The one pointing forward only to that which has been long since accomplished by the Saviour (John 2:21). The other, apparently, pointing to that which He has yet to bring in (Hebrews 4:9).
2. That there is a corresponding difference in the language of the Saviour about them.—The Saviour deliberately saying that about the one in John 4:21 which He nowhere says about the other, not even in such circumstances as those described here.
3. That the spirit, therefore, of this latter symbol, should be observed by us still.—A type which has never been fulfilled, an observance which has never been abrogated, can hardly be obsolete yet.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 12:1-14. The Pharisees’ Sabbath and Christ’s.—This passage includes two Sabbath incidents, in the first of which the disciples are the transgressors of the Sabbatic tradition; in the second, Christ’s own action is brought into question. The scene of the first is in the fields, that of the second is the synagogue. In the one, Sabbath observance is set aside at the call of personal needs; in the other, at a call of another’s calamity. So the two correspond to the old Puritan principle that the Sabbath law allowed of “works of necessity and of mercy.”
I. The Sabbath and personal needs.—What a glimpse into the penury of their usual condition the quiet statement that the disciples were hungry gives us, especially if we remember that it is not likely that the Master had fared better than they! As soon as they “began” to eat, the eager Pharisees, who seem to have been at their heels, call Him to “behold” this dreadful crime. If they had had as sharp eyes for men’s necessities as for their faults they might have given them food which it was “lawful” to eat, and so obviated this frightful iniquity. But that is not the way of Pharisees. Moses had not forbidden such gleaning, but their casuistry decided that plucking the ears was of the nature of reaping, and reaping was work, and work was forbidden, etc. Our Lord accepts His questioners’ position for the time, and gives them a perfect answer on their own ground. He quotes two instances in which ceremonial obligations give way before higher law. “In this place” (He adds)—here among the growing corn, beneath the free heaven, far away from Jerusalem—“is One greater than the temple.” He is all that the temple symbolised. Where He stands is holy ground, and all work done with reference to Him is worship. These poor followers of His are priests; and if, for His sake, they had broken a hundred Sabbath regulations they are guiltless. So far our Lord has been answering His opponents; now He attacks. The quotation from Hosea is often on His lips. Here He uses it to unmask the real motives of His assailants. Their murmuring came not from more religion, but from less love.
II. The Sabbath and works of beneficence.—Matthew appears to have brought together here two incidents which were separated in time, according to Luke. Matthew tells us that they ask our Lord the question which Luke represents Him as asking them. Perhaps we may say that He gave voice to the question which they were asking in their hearts. The whole thing was an attempt to get Jesus within the meshes of the law. Again, as in the former case, it is the traditional, not the written law, which healing would have broken. It is a significant instance of the absurdity and cruelty which are possible when once religion has been made a matter of outward observance. Here Jesus appeals to the natural sense of compassion to confirm the principle that Sabbath observance must give way to the duty of relieving others. The form in which our Lord puts His conclusive answer to the Pharisees gives an unexpected turn to the reply. He does not say “It Is lawful to heal,” but “It is lawful to do well,” thus at once showing the true justification of healing, viz., that it was a beneficent act, and widening the scope of His answer to cover a whole class of cases. The principle is a wide one.—A. Maclaren, D.D.
Matthew 12:2. Pharisaism.—
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 mistaken and misconstrued, do what they please.
3. Hypocrites do urge ceremonies and external observations, more than the greater things of the law.—David Dickson.
Matthew 12:3-4. The sacredness of man’s needs.—I. This is the lesson which Christ intended to teach in His reference to this act of David. In general, it may be stated as the sacredness of mans needs, or the right of man in his healthy human wants to the holiest and best supply.—The picture is of a hungry man. Hunger is natural and healthy. Equally natural with hunger is the relief of hunger. The world is made not merely to produce the want, but the bread. The hungry man has a table at his side. The very field in which the farmer works until he is faint and weary brings forth corn which gives strength and refreshment. Here, in token of natural adjustment, is the sign of the Divine recognition of the certain right which hunger has to its supply. That right, indeed, is subject to, and sometimes held in abeyance and suspense by, a higher right. A hungry man must not put out his hand and steal a loaf because his unappeased hunger is unnatural and wrong. Nor may the sentinel on duty, on whose watchfulness the safety of the city depends, desert his post, and go and look for food because his heart is heavy for want of it. The laws of honesty and duty are above everything. But it is just a sign of the disorder and discordance of this world that in it natural rights seem sometimes to conflict, and natural necessities go unsupplied, because their supply would be a sacrifice of higher things. In a world of perfect order every hunger would instantly assert its right to food, and find that right recognised by every obedient energy back to the centre of all energy, which is God Himself. In all his ideal teachings Jesus represents this condition, in which every true want of man has a right to and claims an immediate supply from God. The claim of the human upon the Divine; how better can I describe the comprehensive meaning of the gospel? It appears in its widest presentation in the wonder of the Incarnation. Remembering that general law, as applied to this instance of which we have been speaking, will it not be the portion and duty of every man who knows himself to be a child of God to claim immediately the highest and Divinest of his Father’s helps for all his own most ordinary needs?
II. There is a distinction which we are always drawing between what we call things secular and what we call things sacred.—It is good to perpetually remind ourselves that the difference between things sacred and things profane is not that in things sacred God is present, and that from things secular God is absent. Yet there is a difference between the sacred and the secular. There is a difference between reading your Bible and reading your novel, between talking politics and saying your prayers, between going to the counting-house and going to church. One set of actions belongs distinctly to a lower region than the other. But notwithstanding this is so, nay, all the more because this is so, we need to recognise that the lower life is God’s, and that He cares for it, and that He uses it as truly as the higher. The secular is no less truly sacred than the sacred itself. There is no difference of quality between them; when you come down from the summit you do not come away from God. The great lesson, the great blessing that is pressing into men’s souls, seems to me to lie in the truth, that none of all the notes of life can sound truly except when they are sounded in the atmosphere of God. The mountain tops will glow more richly as the valleys are all filled with light and send up a reflection of the highest glory. The temple will be not less, but more sacred when the sacredness of the shock and the field and the home are cordially and thankfully acknowledged. The shewbread will be all the more holy when it is proved that it is not too holy to fill the hunger of a hungry man. The highest realms of religious speculation and religious rapture will reach higher still when religion has been claimed for the commonest duties and the more sordid sufferings of life as their only strength and help.—Phillips Brooks, D.D.
Interpreting the law.—
1. When the mind of the Law-giver, and the intent and end of the commandment are not contravened, the precept is not broken. This is the ground of Christ’s defence.
2. Not reading nor considering the Scripture whereby the meaning of the law may be understood, is the cause of error and mistaking of duties.—David Dickson.
Matthew 12:6. Christ greater than the temple.—
I. The temple exists but for Him.
II. It is but a place of assembly where men may meet with Him.
III. However splendid, it is nothing except He be there.
IV. However lowly, the presence of “the great King” makes of it a heavenly palace.—J. C. Gray.
Matthew 12:7. Knowing and judging.—
1. The true meaning of God’s word being known, will prevent rash judgment. “If ye had known.”
2. Condemning the guiltless doth draw the judge, being rash, under guilt. “Ye would not have condemned the guiltless.”
3. It is not every man, no, not every learned man, who is acquainted with the true meaning of the Scriptures, for, in saying, “If ye had known” He taxed both the Pharisees and scribes of ignorance.—David Dickson.
Why must we be merciful?—
1. Because God will have us merciful, and His will must rule us.
2. Because charity is the sum of religion.
3. Because herein we imitate our Father who is a God of mercy.
4. Because we have obtained mercy from our Father.
5. Because otherwise we neither can be assured of mercy from God or men (Matthew 5:7; Matthew 7:2; James 2:13).—Richard Ward.
Mercy and sacrifice.—Archbishop Tillotson gave the most exemplary proof of his charity at the revocation of the edict of Nantes, when thousands of Huguenots were driven over to this country, many of whom settled at Canterbury, where their posterity still continue. The king having granted briefs to collect alms for their relief, Dr. T. was peculiarly active in promoting their success. Dr. Beveridge, one of the prebendaries of Canterbury, refusing to read the briefs as being contrary to the rubrics, he was silenced by Dr. Tillotson with this energetic reply, “Doctor, Doctor, charity is above rubrics.”—Biblical Museum.
Sabbath-service.—In the Sabbath of eternity we shall rest from evil, but doing good will be our Sabbath itself.—Bishop Wordsworth.
Matthew 12:7-8. Spirit not letter.—Although I think that the whole law is done away with, so far as it is the law given on Mount Sinai, yet, as far as it is the law of the Spirit, I hold it to be all binding; and believing that our need of a Lord’s day is as great as ever it was, and that, therefore, its observance is God’s will, and is likely, so far as we see, to be so to the end of time, I should think it mischievous to weaken the respect paid to it.—Dr. Arnold’s letter to Justice Coleridge.