Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 12

At that time — St. Luke (Luke 6:1) defines the time more specifically as “the second first sabbath.” The question of what this term means will be discussed in the notes on that passage. The facts of the case place the event clearly between the Passover and the Feast of Pentecost, during the period between the beginning of the barley harvest and the end of the wheat harvest.

The position this narrative occupies in Mark 2:23 and Luke 6:1—immediately after the feast in Matthew’s house—differs so widely from St. Matthew’s arrangement that it is difficult to construct a harmony. We can only conclude that the words “at that time” refer to this event in a different context than the one in which Matthew has placed it.

Began to pluck the ears of corn — Note St. Mark’s stronger phrase, “to make a path, plucking the ears,” and St. Luke’s description that they ate them, “rubbing them in their hands.” The act was permitted by the Law regarding property rights (Deuteronomy 23:25), but it violated the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Sabbath law. To pluck the ears was considered reaping, and to rub the husks from the grain was considered threshing. Consequently, they thought the new Teacher was tacitly sanctioning a clear violation of the holiness of the day of rest.

When the Pharisees saw it — In the position in which the narrative stands in the other two Gospels, the Pharisees would appear as belonging to the company that had come down from Jerusalem to watch and accuse the new Teacher (Luke 5:17). He claimed the power to forgive sins; He ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. Now they found that He was teaching men to dishonor the Sabbath, as He had already taught them in Jerusalem (John 5:10; John 5:16).

Have you not read...?—The question was an appeal to the Pharisees on the ground where they thought themselves strongest. For them it was an argument à fortiori. Would they accuse David of sacrilege and Sabbath-breaking because he, in a case of urgent need, set aside the twofold law of ordinances? If they shrank from that, was it not inconsistent to condemn the disciples of Jesus for a far lighter transgression?

How he entered into the house of God — Strictly speaking, this was in the tabernacle at Nob, where Ahimelech (possibly assisted by Abiathar, Mark 2:26) was ministering as high priest (1 Samuel 21:6). The showbread, or “bread of offering,” consisted of twelve loaves in two rows of six each. These were presented every Sabbath day (Exodus 25:30; Exodus 40:23; Leviticus 24:5–9), and the loaves from the previous week were then removed and reserved for the exclusive use of the priests.

In this case, however, the necessity of the situation was allowed to override the ceremonial ordinance. Our Lord teaches through this single instance the general principle that when positive commands and necessities involving human well-being come into conflict, the latter must prevail over the former.

The priests in the temple profane the sabbath—The work of the priests, as described for example in Numbers 28:9, involved sacrificing animals and placing the shewbread. This involved an amount of labor that, in any other kind of work, would have broken the Sabbath rest; yet no one blamed the priests, because they were serving in the Temple of Jehovah.