Charles Ellicott Commentary Luke 6

On the second sabbath after the first.—Literally, the second-first Sabbath. There is nothing like this phrase in any other author, and its meaning is therefore largely conjectural. Its use by Luke may be noted as indicating his desire to be accurate as an historian. He sought to gather, as far as he could, definite dates. Hearing, in the course of his inquiries, of this phrase as fixing the time of what followed, he inserted it in his record.

It may be noted that the facts of the case fix limits on either side. The corn was ripe enough to be rubbed in the hands and yield its grain. It had not yet been gathered. It could not, therefore, be much earlier than the Passover, when the barley harvest began, and not much later than Pentecost, when the wheat was ripe. If it preceded, as it appears to have done (Luke 9:12), the feeding of the Five Thousand, it must have been before the Passover (John 6:4). The conjectures, such as they are, are as follows:

1. The first Sabbath of the second month of the year, taking Nisan (in which the Passover occurred) as the first month.
2. The first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover, that day being itself kept as a supplementary feast.
3. The first Sabbath in the second year of the sabbatic cycle of seven years.
4. As the Jewish year had two beginnings, one (the civil) reckoning from the month Tisri (including part of September and October), and the other (the ecclesiastical) from Nisan, it has been supposed that the first Sabbath in Tisri was called first-first, and the first in Nisan second-first.
5. The Sabbath in the Pentecostal week, the second chief or first Sabbath, as that in the Passover week was the first.
6. The day after the new moon, when, through some accident, its appearance had not been reported to the Sanhedrin in time for the sacrifice connected with it. In such a case, the second day was kept as the monthly feast, that is, it received the honours of the first, and so might come to be known technically as the second-first. If it coincided, as it often must have, with the actual Sabbath, such a day might naturally be called a second-first Sabbath.

In the total dearth of information, it is impossible to speak decisively in favour of any one of these views. The last has the merit of at least suggesting the way in which Luke may have become acquainted with such a peculiar term. We know from Jewish writers in the Mishna that the new-moon feast was determined by the personal observation of watchmen appointed by the Sanhedrin, not by astronomical calculation. It was when they failed to observe or report it in time that the rule stated above came into play.

We know from Colossians 2:16 that the observance of that feast had risen to a new prominence in the ritual of a sect which there is every reason to identify with that of the Essenes (see the Note on Colossians 2:16). Among those whom Luke seems to have known at Antioch, we find the name of Manaen (or Menahem), the foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch (Acts 13:1). He was presumably, as many commentators have suggested, the son or grandson of Menahem, an Essene prophet who had predicted the future sovereignty of Herod the Great (see Introduction.). Accordingly, in this way, if such a technical nomenclature were in use among the Essenes (as it likely was), Luke was likely to hear it.

We may further add that Manaen, from his position, was likely to have been brought into contact with the Baptist. He could scarcely fail to have been impressed with a life so entirely moulded (outwardly at least) on the Essene type, and he must have passed through the teaching of John to that of Christ. We find this incident following immediately after one in which the disciples of John were prominent (Luke 5:33).

May we not, therefore, with some reason, think of Manaen having been among them and of his having supplied Luke with the technical term that fixed the very day of the journey through the corn-fields? Combining this view with the fact that if this were a new-moon Sabbath, it must have been the beginning of the moon of Nisan (possibly coinciding with an actual Sabbath), we find an interesting connection: the lesson for the first Sabbath in that month, in the modern Jewish calendar, is from 1 Samuel 21:0 and thus contained the history of the showbread to which our Lord refers. This coincidence, corresponding with what we find in the synagogue discourses of Luke 4:17 and Acts 13:15 (where see the Note), is another confirmation of the view now maintained.

It remains to add that one group of manuscripts of high authority omits the perplexing word. Some critics believe it developed from an original “on the first Sabbath” (as contrasted with the “other Sabbath” of Luke 6:6). They suppose that an ignorant scribe corrected this in the margin to “second,” and that one still more ignorant combined the two readings. These arbitrary conjectures are, however, eminently unscholarly. The very difficulty presented by the word must, on all usual laws of textual criticism, be admitted as an argument for its genuineness.

He went through the corn-fields.—For the narrative that follows, see the notes on Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28.

Plucked the ears of corn, and did eat.—Better, were plucking, and were eating.

It came to pass also on another sabbath.—See Notes on Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1–6.

Whose right hand was withered.—St. Luke alone specifies which hand it was that was affected.

The scribes and Pharisees watched him.—Better, were watching.

Rise up, and stand forth in the midst.—Here again, and throughout what follows, we have another example of a narrative in which St. Mark and St. Luke agree much more closely than either agrees with St. Matthew.

And looking round about upon them.—See Notes on Mark 3:4.