Albert Barnes Commentary Matthew 12

MATTHEW CHAPTER 12

At that time. Luke 6:1 fixes the time more particularly. He says that it was the second Sabbath after the first. To understand this, it is important to note that the Passover was observed during the month Abib, or Nisan, corresponding to the latter part of March and the first of April.

The feast was held for seven days, beginning on the fourteenth day of the month (Exodus 12:1–28; Exodus 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 (Leviticus 23:10–11). From this day, seven weeks were counted to the Feast of Pentecost (Leviticus 23:15–16), also called the Feast of Weeks (Deuteronomy 16:10) and the Feast of the Harvest (Exodus 23:16).

This second day in the Feast of the Passover, or of Unleavened Bread, was therefore the beginning from which they counted towards Pentecost. The Sabbath in the week following would be the second sabbath after this first one in the reckoning; and this was undoubtedly the time mentioned when Christ went through the fields.

It should be further mentioned that, in Judea, the barley harvest begins around the start of May, and both it and the wheat harvest are over by the twentieth of the month. Barley is in full ear in early April. Therefore, there is no improbability in this narrative concerning the season of the year. This feast was always held in 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 does for us. Indian corn was unknown until the discovery of America, and it is hardly probable that the translators knew anything of it. The word was applied, as it still is in England, to wheat, rye, oats, and barley. This explains the circumstance that they rubbed it in their hands (Luke 6:1) to separate the grain from the chaff.

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 (Exodus 20:10; Exodus 35:2–3; Numbers 15:32–36).

On any other day this would have been clearly lawful, for it was permitted (Deuteronomy 23:25).

But he said to 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 then supplied by fresh bread. This was called the shew-bread (Leviticus 24:5–9). David, fleeing before Saul, weary and hungry, had come to Ahimelech the priest; had found only this bread; had asked for it, and had eaten it, contrary to the letter of the law (1 Samuel 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 person: 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.

House of God. This referred to the tabernacle, as the temple had not yet been built.

In the law. This refers to 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 (Numbers 28:9–10). Two lambs were killed on the sabbath, in addition to the daily sacrifice.

The priests had to be engaged in slaying them and making fires to burn them in sacrifice. However, kindling a fire was expressly forbidden to the Jews on the sabbath (Exodus 35:3). They were required to skin them, prepare them for sacrifice, and burn them. They did what, 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 as well, the place of holiness, where the law should be most strictly observed.

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 quoted before (Matthew 9:13), which shows that God preferred acts of righteousness rather than a precise observance of a ceremonial law.

Mark adds (Mark 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 (Genesis 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 favorably 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.