John Gill Commentary Matthew 12:10

"and behold, a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him." — Matthew 12:10 (ASV)

And behold, there was a man who had his hand withered ,
&c.] 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 ^F2 , 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 ^F3 ;``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, (aprtn aprtn Maw) "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, (hawprl Nywktmv Nmzb) , "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 ^F4 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 (hawpr Mwvm) , 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 ^F5 . ``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 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.

FOOTNOTES:

• F2: In loc.
• F3: Maimon. Hilchot Sabbat, c. 21. sect. 24.
• F4: T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 84. 1. Vid. Misn. Yoma, e. 8. sect. 7.
• F5: Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora pr. neg. 65. Maimon. in Misn. Sabbat, c. 18. sect. 3.