TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Matthew 12:1–13. His four-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
The Jewish teachers had corrupted many of the commandments, by interpreting them more loosely than they were intended; a mistake which Christ discovered and rectified (ch. 5) in his sermon on the mount: but concerning the fourth commandment, they had erred in the other extreme, and interpreted it too strictly. Note, it is common for men of corrupt minds, by their zeal in rituals, and the external services of religion, to think to atone for the looseness of their morals. But they are cursed who add to, as well as they who take fRom. the words of this book, Rev 22:16, Rev 22:19; Pro 30:6.
Now that which our Lord Jesus here lays down is, that the works of necessity and mercy are lawful on the sabbath day, which the Jews in many instances were taught to make a scruple of. Christ's industrious explanation of the fourth commandment, intimates its perpetual obligation to the religious observation of one day in seven, as a holy sabbath. He would not expound a law that was immediately to expire, but doubtless intended hereby to settle a point which would be of use to his church in all ages; and so it is to teach us, that our Christian sabbath, though under the direction of the fourth commandment, is not under the injunctions of the Jewish elders.
It is usual to settle the meaning of a law by judgments given upon cases that happen in fact, and in like manner is the meaning of this law settled. Here are two passages of story put together for this purpose, happening at some distance of time from each other, and of a different nature, but both answering this intention.
I.Christ, by justifying his disciples in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath-day, shows that works of necessity are lawful on that day. Now here observe,
1.What it was that the disciples did. They were following their Master one sabbath day through a corn-field; it is likely they were going to the synagogue (Mat 12:9), for it becomes not Christ's disciples to take idle walks on that day, and they were hungry; let it be no disparagement to our Master's house-keeping. But we will suppose they were so intent upon the sabbath work, that they forgot to eat bread; had spent so much time in their morning worship, that they had no time for their morning meal, but came out fasting, because they would not come late to the synagogue. Providence ordered it that they went through the corn, and there they were supplied. Note, God has many ways of bringing suitable provision to his people when they need it, and will take particular care of them when they are going to the synagogue, as of old for them that went up to Jerusalem to worship (Psa 84:6, Psa 84:7), for whose use the rain filled the pools: while we are in the way of duty, Jehovah-jireh, let God alone to provide for us. Being in the corn-fields, they began to pluck the ears of corn; the law of God allowed this (Deu 23:25), to teach people to be neighbourly, and not to insist upon property in a small matter, whereby another may be benefited. This was but slender provision for Christ and his disciples, but it was the best they had, and they were content with it. The famous Mr. Ball, of Whitmore, used to say he had two dishes of meat to his sabbath dinner, a dish of hot milk, and a dish of cold, and he had enough and enough.
2.What was the offence that the Pharisees took at this. It was but a dry breakfast, yet the Pharisees would not let them eat that in quietness. They did not quarrel with them for taking another man's corn (they were no great zealots for justice), but for doing it on the sabbath day; for plucking and rubbing the ears of corn of that day was expressly forbidden by the tradition of the elders, for this reason, because it was a kind of reaping.
Note, It is no new thing for the most harmless and innocent actions of Christ's disciples to be evil spoken of, and reflected upon as unlawful, especially by those who are zealous for their own inventions and impositions. The Pharisees complained of them to their Master for doing that which it was not lawful to do. Note, Those are no friends to Christ and his disciples, who make that to be unlawful which God has not made to be so.
3.What was Christ's answer to this cavil of the Pharisees. The disciples could say little for themselves, especially because those who quarrelled with them seemed to have the strictness of the sabbath sanctification on their side; and it is safest to err on that hand: but Christ came to free his followers, not only from the corruptions of the Pharisees, but from their unscriptural impositions, and therefore has something to say for them, and justifies what they did, though it was a transgression of the canon.
(1.)He justifies them by precedents, which were allowed to be good by the Pharisees themselves.
[1.]He urges an ancient instance of David, who in a case of necessity did that which otherwise he ought not to have done (Mat 12:3, Mat 12:4); "Have ye not read the story (Sa1 21:6) of David's eating the show-bread, which by the law was appropriated to the priest?" (Lev 24:5-9). It is most holy to Aaron and his sons; and (Exo 29:33) a stranger shall not eat of it; yet the priest gave it to David and his men; for though the exception of a case of necessity was not expressed, yet it was implied in that and all other ritual institutions. That which bore out David in eating the show-bread was not his dignity (Uzziah, that invaded the priest's office in the pride of his heart, though a king, was struck with a leprosy for it, Ch2 26:16, etc.), but his hunger. The greatest shall not have their lusts indulged, but the meanest shall have their wants considered. Hunger is a natural desire which cannot be mortified, but must be gratified, and cannot be put off with any thing but meat; therefore we say, It will break through stone walls. Now the Lord is for the body, and allowed his own appointment to be dispensed with in a case of distress; much more might the tradition of the elders be dispensed with. Note, That may be done in a case of necessity which may not be done at another time; there are laws which necessity has not, but it is a law to itself. Men do not despise, but pity, a thief that steals to satisfy his soul when he is hungry, Pro 6:30.
[2.]He urges a daily instance of the priests, which they likewise read in the law, and according to which was the constant usage, Mat 12:5. The priests in the temple did a great deal of servile work on the sabbath day; killing, flaying, burning the sacrificed beasts, which in a common case would have been profaning the sabbath; and yet it was never reckoned any transgression of the fourth commandment, because the temple-service required and justified it. This intimates, that those labours are lawful on the sabbath day which are necessary, not only to the support of life, but to the service of the day; as tolling a bell to call the congregation together, travelling to church, and the like. Sabbath rest is to promote, not to hinder, sabbath worship.
(2.)He justifies them by arguments, three cogent ones.
[1.]In this place is one greater than the temple, Mat 12:6. If the temple-service would justify what the priests did in their ministration, the service of Christ would much more justify the disciples in what they did in their attendance upon him. The Jews had an extreme veneration for the temple: it sanctified the gold; Stephen was accused for blaspheming that holy place (Act 6:13); but Christ, in a corn-field, was greater than the temple, for in him dwelt not the presence of God symbolically, but all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Note, If whatever we do, we do it in the name of Christ, and as unto him, it shall be graciously accepted of God, however it may be censured and cavilled at by men.
[2.]God will have mercy and not sacrifice, Mat 12:7. Ceremonial duties must give way to moral, and the natural, royal law of love and self-preservation must take place of ritual observances. This is quoted from Hos 6:6. It was used before, Mat 9:13, in vindication of mercy to the souls of men; here, of mercy to their bodies. The rest of the sabbath was ordained for man's good, in favour of the body, Deu 5:14. Now no law must be construed so as to contradict its own end. If you had known what this means, had known what it is to be of a merciful disposition, you would have been sorry that they were forced to do this to satisfy their hunger, and would not have condemned the guiltless. Note, First, Ignorance is the cause of our rash and uncharitable censures of our brethren. Secondly, It is not enough for us to know the scriptures, but we must labour to know the meaning of them. Let him that readeth understand. Thirdly, Ignorance of the meaning of the scripture is especially shameful in those who take upon them to teach others.
[3.]The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day, Mat 12:8. That law, as all the rest, is put into the hand of Christ, to be altered, enforced, or dispensed with, as he sees good. It was by the Son that God made the world, and by him he instituted the sabbath in innocency; by him he gave the ten commandments at mount Sinai, and as Mediator he is entrusted with the institution of ordinances, and to make what changes he thought fit; and particularly, as being Lord of the sabbath, he was authorized to make such an alteration of that day, as that it should become the Lord's day, the Lord Christ's day. And if Christ be the Lord of the sabbath, it is fit the day and all the work of it should be dedicated to him. By virtue of this power Christ here enacts, that works of necessity, if they be really such, and not a pretended and self-created necessity, are lawful on the sabbath day; and this explication of the law plainly shows that it was to be perpetual. Exceptio firmat regulam - The exception confirms the rule.
Christ having thus silenced the Pharisees, and got clear of them (Mat 12:9), departed, and went into their synagogue, the synagogue of these Pharisees, in which they presided, and toward which he was going, when they picked this quarrel with him. Note, First, We must take heed lest any thing that occurs in our way to holy ordinances unfit us for, or divert us fRom. our due attendance on them. Let us proceed in the way of our duty, notwithstanding the artifices of Satan, who endeavours, by the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and many other ways, to ruffle and discompose us. Secondly, We must not, for the sake of private feuds and personal piques, draw back from public worship. Though the Pharisees had thus maliciously cavilled at Christ, yet he went into their synagogue. Satan gains this point, if, by sowing discord among brethren, he prevail to drive them, or any of them, from the synagogue, and the communion of the faithful.
II.Christ, by healing the man that had the withered hand on the sabbath day, shows that works of mercy are lawful and proper to be done on that day. The work of necessity was done by the disciples, and justified by him; the work of mercy was done by himself; the works of mercy were his works of necessity; it was his meat and drink to do good. I must preach, says he, Luk 4:43. This cure is recorded for the sake of the time when it was wrought, on the sabbath.
Here is, 1. The affliction that this poor man was in; his hand was withered so that he was utterly disabled to get his living by working with his hands. St. Jerome says, that the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, adds this circumstance to this story of the man with the withered hand, that he was Caementarius - a bricklayer, and applied himself to Christ thus; "Lord, I am a bricklayer, and have got my living by my labour (manibus victum quaeritans); I beseech thee, O Jesus, restore me the use of my hand, that I may not be obliged to beg my bread" (ne turpiter mendicem cibos). Hieron. in loc. This poor man was in the synagogue. Note, Those who can do but little, or have but little to do for the world, must do so much the more for their souls; as the rich, the aged, and the infirm.
2.A spiteful question which the Pharisees put to Christ upon the sight of this man. They asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal? We read not here of any address this poor man made to Christ for a cure, but they observed Christ began to take notice of him, and knew it was usual for him to be found of those that sought him not, and therefore with their badness they anticipated his goodness, and started this case as a stumbling-block in the way of doing good; Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath-day? Whether it was lawful for physicians to heal on that day or not, which was the thing disputed in their books, one would think it past dispute, that it is lawful for prophets to heal, for him to heal who discovered a divine power and goodness in all he did of this kind, and manifested himself to be sent of God. Did ever any ask, whether it is lawful for God to heal, to send his word and heal? It is true, Christ was now made under the law, by a voluntary submission to it, but he was never made under the precepts of the elders. Is it lawful to heal? To enquire into the lawfulness and unlawfulness of actions is very good, and we cannot apply ourselves to any with such enquiries more fitly than to Christ; but they asked here, not that they might be instructed by him, but that they might accuse him. If he should say that it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day, they would accuse him of a contradiction to the fourth commandment; to so great a degree of superstition had the Pharisees brought the sabbath rest, that, unless in peril of life, they allowed not any medicinal operations on the sabbath day. If he should say that it was not lawful, they would accuse him of partiality, having lately justified his disciples in plucking the ears of corn on that day.
3.Christ's answer to this question, by way of appeal to themselves, and their own opinion and practice, Mat 12:11, Mat 12:12. In case a sheep (though but one, of which the loss would not be very great) should fall into a pit on the sabbath day, would they not lift it out? No doubt they might do it, the fourth commandment allows it; they must do it, for a merciful man regardeth the life of his beast, and for their parts they would do it, rather than lose a sheep; does Christ take care for sheep? Yes, he does; he preserves and provides for both man and beast. But here he says it for our sakes (Co1 9:9, Co1 9:10), and hence argues, How much then is a man better than a sheep? Sheep are not only harmless but useful creatures, and are prized and tended accordingly; yet a man is here preferred far before them. Note, Man, in respect of his being, is a great deal better, and more valuable, than the best of the brute creatures: man is a reasonable creature, capable of knowing, loving, and glorifying God, and therefore is better than a sheep. The sacrifice of a sheep could therefore not atone for the sin of a soul. They do not consider this, who are more solicitous for the education, preservation, and supply of their horses and dogs than of God's poor, or perhaps their own household.
Hence Christ infers a truth, which, even at first sight, appears very reasonable and good-natured; that it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days; they had asked, Is it lawful to hear? Christ proves it is lawful to do well, and let any one judge whether healing, as Christ healed, was not doing well. Note, There are more ways of doing well upon sabbath days, than by the duties of God's immediate worship; attending the sick, relieving the poor, helping those who are fallen into sudden distress, and call for speedy relief; this is doing good: and this must be done from a principle of love and charity, with humility and self-denial, and a heavenly frame of spirit, and this is doing well, and it shall be accepted, Gen 4:7.
4.Christ's curing of the man, notwithstanding the offence which he foresaw the Pharisees would take at it, Mat 12:13. Though they could not answer Christ's arguments, they were resolved to persist in their prejudice and enmity; but Christ went on with his work notwithstanding. Note, Duty is not to be left undone, nor opportunities of doing good neglected, for fear of giving offence. Now the manner of the cure is observable; he said to the man, "Stretch forth thy hand, exert thyself as well as thou canst;" and he did so, and it was restored whole. This, as other cures Christ wrought, had a spiritual significancy.
(1.)By nature our hands are withered, we are utterly unable of ourselves to doing any thing that is good.
(2.)It is Christ only, by the power of his grace, that cures us; he heals the withered hand by putting life into the dead soul, works in us both to will and to do.
(3.)In order to our cure, he commands us to stretch forth our hands, to improve our natural powers, and do as well as we can; to stretch them out in prayer to God, to stretch them out to lay hold on Christ by faith, to stretch them out in holy endeavours. Now this man could not stretch forth his withered hand of himself, any more than the impotent man could arise and carry his bed, or Lazarus come forth out of his grave; yet Christ bid him do it. God's commands to us to do the duty which of ourselves we are not able to do are no more absurd or unjust, than this command to the man with the withered hand, to stretch it forth; for with the command, there is a promise of grace which is given by the word. Turn ye at my reproof, and I will pour out my Spirit, Pro 1:23. Those who perish are as inexcusable as this man would have been, if he had not attempted to stretch forth his hand, and so had not been healed. But those who are saved have no more to boast of than this man had of contributing to his own cure, by stretching forth his hand, but are as much indebted to the power and grace of Christ as he was.
Historical interpretation
Nine Centuries of Reception
10 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
Figuratively; First consider that this discourse was held at that time, namely, when He had given thanks to the Father for giving salvation to the Gentiles. The field is the world, the sabbath is rest, the corn the ripening of them that believe for the harvest; thus His passing through the corn field on the sabbath, is the coming of the Lord into the world in the rest of the Law; the hunger of the disciples is their desire for the salvation of men.
The Pharisees, who thought that the key of the kingdom of heaven was in their hands, accused the disciples of doing what was not lawful to do; whereon the Lord reminded them of deeds in which, under the guise of facts, a prophecy was concealed; and that He might show the power of all things, He further added, that it contained the form of that work which was to be, Had ye known what that meaneth, I will have mercy; for the work of our salvation is not in the sacrifice of the Law, but in mercy; and the Law having ceased, we are saved by the mercy of God. Which gift if they had understood they would not have condemned the innocent, that is His Apostles, whom in their jealousy they were to accuse of having transgressed the Law, where the old sacrifices having ceased, the new dispensation of mercy came through them to the aid of all.
How then doth Jesus defend His disciples? "Have ye not read," saith He, "what David did in the temple, when he was an hungered, himself and all they that were with him? how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?"
Thus, whereas in pleading for His disciples, He brings forward David; for Himself, it is the Father.
And observe His reproving manner: "Have ye not read what David did?" For great indeed was that prophet's glory, so that Peter also afterwards pleading with the Jews, spake on this wise, "Let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried."
But wherefore doth He not call him by the name of his rank, either on this occasion or afterwards? Perhaps because He derived His race from him.
Now had they been a candid sort of persons, He would have turned His discourse to the disciples' suffering from hunger; but abominable as they were and inhuman, He rather rehearses unto them a history.
But Mark saith, "In the days of Abiathar the High Priest:" not stating what was contrary to the history, but implying that he had two names; and adds that "he gave unto him," indicating that herein also David had much to say for himself, since even the very priest suffered him; and not only suffered, but even ministered unto him. For tell me not that David was a prophet, for not even so was it lawful, but the privilege was the priests': wherefore also He added, "but for the priests only." For though he were ten thousand times a prophet, yet was he not a priest; and though he were himself a prophet, yet not so they that were with him; since to them too we know that he gave.
"What then," it might be said, "were they all one with David?" Why talk to me of dignity, where there seems to be a transgression of the law, even though it be the constraint of nature? Yea, and in this way too He hath the more entirely acquitted them of the charges, in that he who is greater is found to have done the same.
"And what is this to the question," one may say; "for it was not surely the Sabbath, that he transgressed?" Thou tellest me of that which is greater, and which especially shows the wisdom of Christ, that letting go the Sabbath, He brings another example greater than the Sabbath. For it is by no means the same, to break in upon a day, and to touch that holy table, which it was not lawful for any man to touch. Since the Sabbath indeed hath been violated, and that often; nay rather it is continually being violated, both by circumcision, and by many other works; and at Jericho too one may see the same to have happened; but this happened then only. So that He more than obtains the victory. How then did no man blame David, although there was yet another ground of charge heavier than this, that of the priests' murder, which had its origin from this? But He states it not, as applying himself to the present subject only.
(Hon. xxxix.) Why then did He lead them through the corn fields on the sabbath, seeing He knew all things, unless He desired to break the sabbath? This he desired indeed, but not absolutely, therefore He broke it not without cause, but furnished a sufficient reason; so that He both caused the Law to cease, and yet offended not against it. Thus in order to soften the Jews, He here introduces a natural necessity; this is what is said, And his disciples being an hungred, began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. Although in things which are manifestly sinful, there can be no excuse, he who kills another cannot plead rage, nor he who commits adultery, lust, or any other cause; yet here saying that the disciples were hungry, He delivers them from all accusation.
Here admire the disciples, who are so limited in their desires, that they have no care of the things of the body, but despise the support of the flesh; they are assailed by hunger, and yet they go not away from Christ; for had not they been hard pressed by hunger, they would not have done thus. What the Pharisees said to this is added, The Pharisees seeing it said unto Him, Behold, thy disciples do what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.
To clear His disciples, He brings forward the instance of David, whose glory as a Prophet was great among the Jews. Yet they could not here answer that this was lawful for him, because he was a Prophet; for it was not Prophets, but Priests only who might eat. And the greater was he who did this, the greater is the defence of the disciples; yet though David was a Prophet, they that were with him were not.
But some one will say, How is this instance applicable to the question in hand? For David did not transgress the sabbath. Herein is shown the wisdom of Christ, that He brings forward an instance stronger than the sabbath. For it is by no means the same thing to violate the sabbath, and to touch that sacred table, which is lawful for none. And again, He adds yet another answer, saying, Or have ye not read in the Law, that on the sabbath days the Priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
But that you should not say to me, that to find an instance of another's sin is not to excuse our own—indeed where the thing done and not the doer of it is accused, we excuse the thing done. But this is not enough, He said what is yet more, that they are blameless. But see how great things He brings in; first, the place, in the Temple; secondly, the time, on the sabbath; the setting aside the Law, in the word profane, not merely break; and that they are not only free from punishment but from blame; and are blameless. And this second instance is not like the first which He gave respecting David; for that was done but once, by David who was not a Priest, and was a case of necessity; but this second is done every sabbath, and by the Priests, and according to the Law. So that not only by indulgence, as the first case would establish, but by the strict law the disciples are to be held blameless. But are the disciples Priests? yea, they are yet greater than Priests, forasmuch as He was there who is the Lord of the Temple, who is the reality and not the type; and therefore it is added, But I say unto you, one greater than the Temple is here.
And because what He had said seemed hard to those that heard it, He again exhorts to mercy, introducing His discourse with emphasis, saying, But had ye known what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would never have condemned the innocent.
Observe again how in leading the discourse towards an apology for them, He shows His disciples to be above the need of any apology, and to be indeed blameless, as He had said above of the Priests. And He adds yet another plea which clears them of blame, For the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath.
To put down the chicanery of the Pharisees it is recorded in ancient history that David was fleeing from Saul and came to Nob. Having been received by Ahimelech the priest, he asked him for food. Since Ahimelech had no common bread at hand, he gave David some holy bread, which only priests and Levites could lawfully eat. The priest asked whether the young men had kept themselves from women, and he received the answer “since yesterday and the day before.” He did not hesitate to give the bread, having thought it better, remembering that the prophet says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” In view of the danger of hunger, Ahimelech judged it better to help people than to offer sacrifice to God. The slain victim pleasing to God is the salvation of humankind. If David is holy and the priest Ahimelech is not offensive to you, but they have broken both commandments of the law with a probable excuse—in this case, hunger—why do you not find acceptable the same hunger in the apostles that you find acceptable in others? However, in this there is a great difference: the disciples plucked grain on the sabbath, whereas David ate the levitical bread.… Note that neither David nor his young men accepted the loaves of the presence until they replied that they had kept themselves from women.
As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity of taking food because of the thronging of the multitude, and therefore they hungred as men. That they rub the ears of corn in their hands, and with them satisfy themselves, is a proof of an austere life, and of men who needed not prepared meats, but sought only simple food.
Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionitesa, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace.
Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of show-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women.
As though He had said, Ye bring complaints against my disciples, that on the sabbath they rub ears of corn in their hands, under stress of hunger, and ye yourselves profane the sabbath, slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, burning holocausts on piles of wood; also, on the testimony of another Gospel (John 7:23.), ye circumcise infants on the sabbath; so that in keeping one law, ye break that concerning the sabbath. But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shows that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation.
The word Hic is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place here, for that place is greater than the Temple which contains the Lord of the Temple.
What I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, signifies, we have explained above. The words, Ye mould never have condemned the innocent, are to be referred to the Apostles, and the meaning is, If ye allow the mercy of Achimelech, in that he refreshed David when in danger of famishing, why do ye condemn My disciples?
(Ver. 3, 4.) But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? To refute the slander of the Pharisees, he recalls an old story, when David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nob and was received by the priest Ahimelech. He asked for food, and since he did not have any ordinary bread, Ahimelech gave him the consecrated bread, which only the priests and Levites were allowed to eat. And he merely asked if there were any boys in the world born of women; and when he responded, without hesitation, he did not hesitate to give bread, deeming it better to free people from the danger of hunger, as the prophet says: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hosea 6:6), rather than to offer sacrifice to God. For a merciful offering is pleasing to God and the salvation of humanity. Therefore, the Lord opposes and says: 'If even David, who is holy, and Ahimelech the high priest, are not condemned by you, but rather both have transgressed the command of the Law with a justifiable excuse, and hunger is the cause, why do you not approve the same hunger in the apostles, which you approve in others?' Although there is a great difference in this. Those people rubbed the ears of grain in their hands on the Sabbath, while others ate the Levitical loaves and came near the feast of the New Moon, on which day he was sought for at the banquet and fled from the royal court. Note that neither David nor his servants took the showbread before they answered that they were clean from women.
(Quæst. in Matt. q. 10.) It should be observed, that one example is taken from royal persons, as David, the other from priestly, as those who profane the sabbath for the service of the Temple, so that much less can the charge concerning the rubbing the ears of corn attach to Him who is indeed King and Priest.
He calls Himself the Son of Man, and the meaning is, He whom ye suppose a mere man is God, the Lord of all creatures, and also of the sabbath, and He has therefore power to change the law after His pleasure, because He made it.
They pluck the ears of corn when they withdraw men from devotion to the world; they rub them in their hands when they tear away their hearts from the lusts of the flesh; they eat the grain when they transfer such as are amended into the body of the Church.
This they do on the sabbath, that is in the hope of eternal rest, to which they invite others. Also they walk through the corn fields with the Lord, who have delight in meditating on the Scriptures; they are hungry while they desire to find the bread of life, that is the love of God, in them; they pluck the ears of corn and rub them in their hands, while they examine the testimonies to discover what lies hid under the letter, and this on the sabbath, that is, while they are free from disquieting thoughts.
(ord.) Having related the preaching together with the miracles of one year before John's enquiry, He passes to those of another year, namely after the death of John, when Jesus is already in all things spoken against, and hence it is said, At that time Jesus passed through the corn fields on the sabbath day.
Continue studying Matthew 12:3 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
In Matthew 12:3, Jesus responds to the Pharisees' accusation that His disciples violated the Sabbath by plucking grain. He challenges their rigid legalism by referencing a pivotal Old Testament event: King David and his men eating the consecrated showbread out of necessity. This defense highlights Jesus's authoritative interpretation of the Law, emphasizing mercy and human need over strict ceremonial adherence, and foreshadows His declaration as Lord of the Sabbath.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is part of a series of Sabbath controversies in Matthew's Gospel, beginning in Matthew 12:1-2. The Pharisees accuse Jesus's disciples of unlawful activity (harvesting and threshing, by their interpretation) on the Sabbath. Jesus's response in Matthew 12:3-8 is a multi-faceted argument. He first appeals to the precedent of David, then to the actions of priests in the Temple, and finally asserts His own authority as "Lord even of the Sabbath day" (Matthew 12:8). This passage serves to highlight the clash between Jesus's compassionate, spirit-of-the-law approach and the Pharisees' rigid, letter-of-the-law legalism, setting the stage for further demonstrations of Jesus's messianic authority.
Historical & Cultural Context
The Sabbath was a foundational commandment for Israel, signifying God's rest after creation and Israel's deliverance from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 20:8-11). Over centuries, particularly during the Second Temple period, Jewish religious leaders, especially the Pharisees, developed extensive oral traditions (the Halakha) to interpret and apply the Torah's commands. These traditions often created a "fence around the Torah," intending to prevent accidental transgression but sometimes resulting in burdensome and overly strict regulations. Plucking grain was considered a form of harvesting, and rubbing it in one's hands a form of threshing, both forbidden labors on the Sabbath according to Pharisaic interpretation. The incident involving David and the showbread, recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, was a well-known historical precedent where necessity superseded ritual law.
Key Themes
The central themes in this passage revolve around the true meaning of the Law and Jesus's supreme authority. Jesus challenges the Pharisees' legalistic interpretation, arguing that the spirit of the law—rooted in mercy and compassion—supersedes rigid adherence to human-made traditions. He introduces the principle that human need and divine mercy can, in extraordinary circumstances, take precedence over ceremonial regulations, echoing the prophetic call for "mercy, not sacrifice" found in Hosea 6:6, which Jesus directly quotes in Matthew 12:7. Furthermore, this exchange powerfully establishes Jesus's messianic authority as one who is greater than the Temple and, ultimately, the "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8), revealing His divine prerogative to interpret and fulfill God's commands.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This particle introduces a contrast or transition. Here, it marks Jesus's direct and authoritative counter-argument to the Pharisees' accusation, shifting the narrative from their legalistic challenge to His profound theological response.
Meaning "to know again" or "to read," this word implies that the Pharisees, as religious scholars, should have been familiar with the Old Testament scriptures and understood their implications. Jesus's rhetorical question, "Have ye not read," challenges their perceived expertise and highlights their failure to grasp the spirit of the Law despite their knowledge of its letter.
Referring to the revered Israelite king, David's inclusion is highly significant. David was a figure of immense authority and piety, a "man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22). By citing David's actions, Jesus appeals to a precedent set by a celebrated figure, suggesting that if David, a king, was justified in breaking a ceremonial law due to necessity, then His own disciples, facing hunger, were likewise justified.
This archaic English phrase means "to be hungry" or "to famish." Its use here emphasizes the dire physical necessity that drove David and his men to eat the showbread. Jesus uses this detail to underscore the principle that genuine human need can, under divine allowance, take precedence over strict ritualistic adherence.
Verse Breakdown
"But he said unto them,"
This phrase signals Jesus's direct and confrontational response to the Pharisees' accusation. It sets up an authoritative teaching moment where Jesus will challenge their legalistic interpretation of the Sabbath.
"Have ye not read"
This is a rhetorical question, implying that the Pharisees, as custodians and interpreters of the Law, should have been well aware of the Old Testament incident Jesus is about to cite. It serves as a gentle rebuke, suggesting a deficiency in their understanding or application of scripture.
"what David did,"
Jesus immediately draws a parallel to a highly respected figure in Israelite history, King David. By invoking David, Jesus appeals to a precedent that would be difficult for the Pharisees to dismiss, as David was considered a paragon of faith and kingship.
"when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;"
This clause specifies the circumstances of David's action: he and his companions were in a state of urgent physical need (hunger). This detail is crucial, as it establishes the principle of necessity that Jesus uses to justify His disciples' actions, arguing that human welfare can, in certain situations, override ceremonial regulations.
Literary Devices
Jesus employs several potent literary devices in this verse. The most prominent is the Rhetorical Question, "Have ye not read," which is not asked for information but to challenge the Pharisees' presumed knowledge and understanding of their own scriptures. This question implies that the answer should be obvious to them, thereby highlighting their spiritual blindness. Following this, Jesus uses Allusion and Argument from Precedent by referencing the well-known account of David eating the showbread in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. This serves as a powerful Analogy, drawing a parallel between David's divinely sanctioned act of necessity and His disciples' actions. By invoking David, a figure revered by the Pharisees, Jesus undermines their critique by demonstrating that even under the Old Covenant, the spirit of mercy and human need could legitimately supersede rigid ceremonial law.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 12:3 is a foundational passage for understanding Jesus's approach to the Law, revealing that God's primary concern is not rigid adherence to external rules but the cultivation of mercy, compassion, and true righteousness that flows from the heart. Jesus's appeal to David's actions demonstrates that even under the Old Covenant, there was a recognition that human necessity and divine compassion could, in extraordinary circumstances, take precedence over ceremonial stipulations. This principle challenges a legalistic mindset that elevates human traditions or the letter of the law above its life-giving spirit, emphasizing that the Sabbath, like all of God's commands, was given for the benefit and blessing of humanity, not as an oppressive burden.
Reflection and Application
This passage profoundly challenges our own tendencies toward legalism and judgment. It calls us to examine whether our understanding and application of God's Word are rooted in genuine compassion and a desire to see human flourishing, or if we prioritize rigid adherence to rules and traditions, even at the expense of mercy. Just as Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their spiritual blindness, we are invited to cultivate a deeper, more Spirit-led discernment that grasps the heart of God behind His commands. This means prioritizing love for God and neighbor, extending grace, and seeking to meet genuine needs, rather than imposing burdensome or unbiblical standards. It encourages us to ask: Are we truly living out the spirit of God's law, or merely observing its letter?
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
What was the "showbread" that David ate?
The showbread (or "bread of the Presence") was twelve loaves of unleavened bread, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, that were placed on a special table in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) each Sabbath. It was considered holy and was typically reserved for the priests to eat in a holy place, as prescribed in Leviticus 24:5-9. It was a symbolic offering to God, signifying His covenant presence among His people and His provision for them.
Why was David allowed to eat the showbread, which was normally forbidden for non-priests?
As recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, David and his men were in dire straits, fleeing from King Saul and desperately hungry. The priest Ahimelech, after confirming that David and his men were ritually clean, permitted them to eat the showbread because of their extreme necessity. Jesus uses this incident to illustrate that in cases of urgent human need, the spirit of the law (mercy and preservation of life) can take precedence over the letter of the ceremonial law. It highlights a principle that God values human life and well-being above strict ritualistic observance.
What was the main issue the Pharisees had with Jesus's disciples?
The Pharisees accused Jesus's disciples of violating the Sabbath law by plucking and eating grain as they walked through a field (Matthew 12:1-2). According to their extensive oral traditions, plucking grain was considered a form of harvesting, and rubbing it in their hands was considered a form of threshing—both forbidden labors on the Sabbath. Their issue was not with the act of eating, as the Law allowed one to eat from a neighbor's field when hungry (Deuteronomy 23:25), but with the method of obtaining the food on the Sabbath day. They believed Jesus and His disciples were disrespecting the sanctity of the Sabbath by engaging in what they deemed "work."
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Matthew 12:3, with its reference to David, powerfully points to Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of God's purposes and the true Lord over all things, including the Sabbath. Just as David, an anointed king, was permitted to transcend ceremonial law due to necessity, Jesus, the greater Son of David and the true King, possesses inherent authority to interpret and fulfill the Law's deepest meaning. He is not merely a prophet or teacher, but the very embodiment of the Temple and its sacrificial system, as He declares Himself "something greater than the temple" in Matthew 12:6. Jesus is the ultimate High Priest, whose perfect sacrifice on the cross fulfills the need for all ritualistic offerings (Hebrews 9:11-14). Furthermore, Jesus is the one who truly provides for our spiritual hunger, offering Himself as the "bread of life" (John 6:35), far surpassing the temporary sustenance of the showbread. His declaration as "Lord even of the sabbath day" in Matthew 12:8 signifies that the Sabbath finds its true rest and purpose in Him, where humanity finds ultimate rest from its labors and sin.