The evangelist is inspired to introduce these accounts of two sabbaths here. Very probably also they took place at this point of time. If so, it is because the moral object of the Spirit in Luke coincided here with the historical order. Thus we may infer from a comparison with the order of Mark, who, as a rule, cleaves to the sequence of events. In Matthew, on the contrary, these facts are reserved for a much later point of his gospel. (Chap. 12.) A vast compass both of discourses and miracles is introduced by him before he speaks of these two sabbath days. And the reason is manifest. Matthew here, as often, departs from the order of occurrence in order to show the long-continued and ample testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, before he makes use of these incidents on the sabbath, which even the Jews themselves felt to slight their sabbatical practice, and threatened the legal covenant. Ezekiel speaks of the sabbath as a sign between Jehovah and Israel. (Chap. 20:12, 20.) And now this was about to vanish away. Hence these actions on the sabbath day are extremely significant. They occur in Matthew, in the chapter where our Lord announces the unforgiveable sin of that generation, as also at the close He disowns His natural ties, and speaks of the formation of a new and spiritual relationship, founded on doing the will of His Father in heaven. Then forthwith in the next chapter He shows the kingdom of heaven and its course, which was about to be introduced because of the utter apostasy of Israel and the consequent rupture of that economy.
In Mark and Luke this is not the immediate object. They are given, it would appear, as they occurred, and Mark had to tell. Still, it is evident that their mention here falls in with Luke's design remarkably. He takes notice, we saw in the last chapter, of the working of divine grace, which calls not the righteous but sinners to repentance. Nor will the new thing of Christ, the Second Man, mix with the old things. Yet man's preference is undisguised for the old because it suits his habits and self-importance. Grace exalts God, and must be paramount.
In this chapter (7.) we are told, “It came to pass” —not on the second sabbath after the first, but “on the second-first sabbath"—a very peculiar phrase, which has perplexed the commentators and critics immensely. It is found in no place or author but here. The only thing which really explains it seems to be a reference to Jewish customs and their feasts.
On one of these occasions (Lev. 23:10-1210Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord. (Leviticus 23:10‑12)) the first cut sheaf of corn was waved before God. The disciples were now going through the corn-fields. Thus the connection was evident. It was the earliest sabbath after the firstfruits had been offered. This adds to the striking character of the instruction. The passover took place immediately before, as we know: the paschal lamb was killed on the fourteenth of Nisan between the evenings. Then followed the great sabbath immediately, and, on the day after, the first sheaf of corn was waved before the Lord. It was the type of Christ's resurrection. The corn of wheat had fallen into the ground and died, but was now risen again. As the killing of the lamb was the type of His death, so was this wave sheaf of His resurrection. From the day on which it was offered, seven weeks were counted complete (of course with their sabbaths), and then came the next great feast, or that of weeks. The first of these sabbaths, in the seven weeks, counted from the day of the wave sheaf, was not the great paschal sabbath, but it followed next in succession. The sabbath that opened the feast of unleavened bread after the Passover was the first, and the following sabbath day was “the second first.” It was “second” in relation to that great day, the paschal sabbath, but “first” of the seven which immediately ensued. Thus it was the first sabbath-day after the wave sheaf; and no “Israelite indeed” could have counted it lawful to have eaten of corn till after Jehovah had received His portion.
On that sabbath then, the disciples, in passing through the corn fields, “plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.” This was always allowed, and is still, in eastern countries round the Holy Land—no doubt a remaining trace of the old traditional habit of the Jews. It is allowed as an act of charity to the hungry. What a condition for the followers of the Lord Jesus to be in! What a proof of His shame and of their need!
But nothing moved the Pharisees: religious bitterness steels the natural heart. “And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?” The Lord answered instead of the disciples, “Have ye not read so much as this, what David did when himself was an hungered and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?” The Spirit of God here takes up only David—not the priests of whom also Matthew treats, which was very suitable. He, writing for Jews, would use a proof of the folly of their objection which was before their eyes every day. But Luke refers to the moral analogy in the history of the great king David, who, after his anointing, and before coming to the throne (which was just the Lord's position now), was reduced to such excessive straits that the holy bread was made profane for his sake. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual where the anointed king and his followers were destitute of the barest necessaries of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation. How could God sanction holy bread in such a condition? How could He accept of the showbread of the people as the food of His priests, when all the foundations were clearly out of course? Was not this evident in the hunger of His anointed and of his trusty hand? Was not the rejected Son of David as free as the rejected David?
The Lord closes this part of the subject with the declaration, “That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Thus there is another reason yet more powerful. David was not the Son of man as Jesus was. The Son of man had, in His own person and position, rights altogether superior to any ritual. He was entitled to abrogate it. He would do so formally in due time; for this attached to His personal glory. “The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath,” which David was not.
Nor is this all. The Lord Jesus on another sabbath enters the synagogue and teaches, where “there was a man whose right hand was withered.” And now the scribes and Pharisees with deadly hatred are watching to see “whether he would heal on the sabbath day, that they might find an accusation against him.” Such was man on one side: on the other there was a stranger come down from heaven, a man also, to fallen man, and with a heart to display heaven's and God's mind perfectly. But those who prided themselves upon their righteousness and wisdom are afraid lest men should be healed by Him at the expense of their ceremonies, and they seek to fasten an accusation against Him. “But he knew their thoughts and said to the man which had the withered hand; Rise up and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.” The thing was not done in a corner, but boldly in presence of them all.
The Lord even challenges them publicly and says, “I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good or to do evil? to save life or to destroy it?” They were doing evil; it was His to do good. They were seeking to destroy His life; He was willing to save theirs. “And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand.” It was enough: the man did so, “and his hand was restored whole as the other.” How simple, and yet how truly divine! Was this then a work done? Was the Son's healing what God had forbidden? Was this unworthy of God? Was it not, on the contrary, the very expression of what God is? Is not God always doing good? Does He forbear to do good on the sabbath day? Was not the very sabbath itself a witness how God loved to do good, and a pledge that He will bring His people into His own rest? Was not Jesus doing so to this sufferer, and giving a witness of the gracious power that will do so fully by and by?
And what was the effect upon unbelief? “They were filled with madness, and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus;” and this because He had shown that God never foregoes His title to do good even on the sabbath-day in a world that is ruined by man's sin and Satan's wiles. A superior power has entered and manifests the defeat of Satan. But, meanwhile, the instruments of Satan are filled first with his lies and secondly with his murderous hatred. “They communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.” For indeed they had no communion with God and with His mind. They were only filled with madness and communed one with another how to injure the Lord, the manifest children of their father: such did not Abraham.