Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
is usual with hypocrites to pursue what is nothing more than a shadow of the righteousness of the
Law, and as the common saying is, to stickle more about the form than about the substance. First,
then, let us learn from this passage to keep our minds pure, and free from every wicked disposition,
when we are about to form a decision on any question; for if hatred, or pride, or anything of that
description, reign within us, we will not only do injury to men, but will insult God himself, and
turn light into darkness. No man, who was free from malice, would have refused to acknowledge
that it was a Divine work, which those good teachers do not scruple to condemn. 85 Whence comes
such fury, but because all their senses are affected by a wicked hatred of Christ, so that they are
blind amidst the full brightness of the sun? We learn also, that we ought to beware lest, by attaching
undue importance to ceremonial observances, we allow other things to be neglected, which are of
far higher value in the sight of God, and which Christ in another passage calls the more important
matters of the Law, (Matthew 23:23.) For so strongly are we inclined to outward rites, that we shall
never preserve moderation in this respect, unless we constantly remember, that whatever is enjoined
respecting the worship of God is, in the first place, spiritual; and, secondly, ought to be regulated
by the rule which Christ has laid down to us in this passage.
10. They asked him, saying. Mark and Luke say only that they watched what our Lord would
do; but Matthew states more clearly that they also attacked him by words. It is probable, that some
others had been previously cured on Sabbath-days; and hence they take occasion to ask if he believes
it to be lawful for him to do again what he had formerly done. They ought to have considered
whether it was a work of God, or of man, to restore a withered hand by a mere touch, or by a single
word. When God appointed the Sabbath, he did not lay down a law for himself, or impose upon
himself any restraint from performing operations on the Sabbath, when he saw it to be proper, in
the same manner as on other days. It was excessive folly, therefore, to call this in question, and
thus to prescribe rules for God himself, and to restrain the freedom of his operations.
11. What man shall there be among you who shall have a sheep? Christ again points out what
is the true way of keeping the Sabbath; and, at the same time, reproves them for slander, in bringing
as a charge against him what was a universal custom. For if any man’s sheep had fallen into a ditch,
no person would have hindered it from being taken out: but in proportion as a man is of more value
than a sheep, so much the more are we at liberty to assist him. It is plain, therefore, that if any man
should relieve the necessity of brethren, he did not, in any degree, violate the rest which the Lord
has enjoined. Mark and Luke take no notice of this comparison, but only state that Christ inquired,
Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil?
He who takes away the life of a man is held to be a criminal; and there is little difference between
manslaughter and the conduct of him who does not concern himself about relieving a person in
distress. So then Christ indirectly charges them with endeavoring, under the pretense of a holy act,
to compel him to do evil; for sin is committed, as we have already said, not only by him who does
any thing contrary to the Law, but also by him who neglects his duty. Hence also we perceive, that
85 “N’ont point de honte de condamner;” — “are not ashamed to condemn.”
35
John Calvin