Matt. XII. 1.
At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the grain; and His disciples were a hungered, and began to pluck the ears of grain, and to eat.
But Luke says, On a double Sabbath. Now what is a double Sabbath? When the cessation from toil is twofold, both that of the regular Sabbath, and that of another feast coming upon it. For they call every cessation from toil, a sabbath.
But why could He have led them away from it, who foreknew all, unless it had been His will that the Sabbath should be broken? It was His will indeed, but not simply so; wherefore He never breaks it without a cause, but giving reasonable excuses: that He might at once bring the law to an end, and not startle them. But there are occasions on which He even repeals it directly, and not with circumstance: as when He anoints with the clay the eyes of the blind man; as when He says, My Father works hitherto, and I work. And He does so, by this to glorify His own Father, by the other to soothe the infirmity of the Jews. At which last He is laboring here, putting forward as a plea the necessity of nature; although in the case of acknowledged sins, that could not of course ever be an excuse. For neither may the murderer make his anger a plea, nor the adulterer allege his lust, no, nor any other excuse; but here, by mentioning their hunger, He freed them from all blame.
But do thou, I pray you, admire the disciples, how entirely they control themselves, and make no account of the things of the body, but esteem the table of the flesh a secondary thing, and though they have to struggle with continual hunger, do not even so withdraw themselves. For except hunger had sorely constrained them, they would not have done so much as this.
What then do the Pharisees? When they saw it, it is said, they said to Him, Behold, Your disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.
Now here indeed with no great vehemence (yet surely that would have been consistent in them) — nevertheless they are not vehemently provoked, but simply find fault. But when He stretched out the withered hand and healed it, then they were so infuriated, as even to consult together about slaying and destroying Him. For where nothing great and noble is done, they are calm; but where they see any made whole, they are savage, and fret themselves, and none so intolerable as they are: such enemies are they of the salvation of men.
How then does Jesus defend His disciples? Have ye not read, says 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, spoke on this wise, Let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried.
But wherefore does 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 says, 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 has 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? You tell 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 has 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.