 |  |
As the Saviour well knew, this simple act was punishable by death; hence His
intervention on His disciples' behalf.
"The works whereby a man is guilty of stoning and cutting off . . . . . are either
primitive or derivative" (Maimon).
There were 39 "primitive" kinds of work, which if done presumptuously on the
Sabbath rendered a man liable to death--including ploughing, sowing and reaping. The
"derivative" works were, for example, "digging"--for that was a sort of ploughing, and
"plucking" ears of corn--for that was a sort of reaping. Knowing that death by stoning
was the punishment for this action, if done presumptuously, the Saviour interposes to
show that they had been moved the necessity of hunger, and not by contempt for the Law
or Jewish scruples. He then cites the example of David and the priests (Matt. 12: 3-5).
In verse 5 the Lord refers to the fact that "the priests in the temple profane the sabbath
and are blameless". The traditional law concerning the working of the priests on the
sabbath reads:
"The servile work, which is done in the holy things, is not servile" (Hieros. Schab).
"There is no sabbatism at all in the temple" (Maimon).
In verse 6-8 we have the Lord's first great claim recorded in Matthew:
"But I say unto you, That in this place is One greater than the temple . . . . . For the
son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day" (Matt. 12: 6-8).
And Mark, in his Gospel, adds the significant words: "The sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2: 27).
Here then were two related claims, stupendous in their sublimity, and far-reaching in
their effect upon subsequent doctrine. The Son of man was Lord of the sabbath day, and
the sabbath day was made for the sons of men. No wonder such words were offensive in
the ears of those whose teaching bound heavy burdens upon men, and who made void the
law by their traditions.
Immediately following this incident, and as though to confirm His claim, comes the
record of the healing of the man with a withered hand. The Lord's attention is drawn to
this man by the Pharisees themselves, "that they might accuse Him" (Matt. 12: 10). He
replies to their question by referring to their own laws. A sheep, if fallen into a pit,
could be released on the sabbath, and the Lord knew only too well the kind of subterfuge
that enabled the Pharisees to evade even his own laws, e.g., "He that hath a sore throat,
let him not gargle it with oil"--but he was permitted to "swallow down the oil", and so
on, through a whole series of laws and their evasion. Rejecting their pettifogging
scruples, the Lord continues:
"How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on
the sabbath days" (Matt. 12: 12).