Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 12:1-8

"At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat. But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath." — Matthew 12:1-8 (ASV)

Glossa Ordinaria: After relating the preaching along with the miracles of one year before John's inquiry, He moves on to those of another year, specifically, after John's death, when Jesus was already being opposed in all things. This is why it says, "At that time Jesus passed through the grainfields on the sabbath day." ¹

St. Augustine of Hippo: What follows here is related by both Mark and Luke without any question of a discrepancy. Indeed, they do not say, "At that time," so perhaps Matthew has preserved the order of time here, while they followed the order of their recollection. We could also understand the words in a broader sense, "At that time," meaning the period in which these many and various things were done. From this, we can understand that all these things happened after the death of John, for it is believed he was beheaded shortly after he sent his disciples to Christ. So when Matthew says "at that time," he might only mean an indefinite time. ²

St. John Chrysostom: Why, then, did He lead them through the grainfields on the Sabbath, since He knew all things, unless He wanted to break the Sabbath? He did indeed desire this, but not absolutely. Therefore, He did not break it without cause but provided a sufficient reason, so that He both brought the Law to an end and yet did not offend against it. ³

To soften the Jews' reaction, He introduces a natural necessity here. This is what is meant by, "And his disciples being hungry, began to pluck heads of grain, and to eat." Although in things that are obviously sinful there can be no excuse—one who kills another cannot plead rage, nor can one who commits adultery plead lust, or any other cause—here, by saying that the disciples were hungry, He frees them from all accusation.

St. Jerome: As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity to take food because of the pressing crowd, and therefore they were hungry, as any person would be. That they rub the heads of grain in their hands and with them satisfy their hunger is proof of an austere life, and of men who did not need prepared meals but sought only simple food.

St. John Chrysostom: Here, admire the disciples, who are so limited in their desires that they have no concern for the things of the body but despise the sustenance of the flesh. They are overcome by hunger, and yet they do not leave Christ; for if they had not been hard-pressed by hunger, they would not have done this.

What the Pharisees said in response is added: "The Pharisees seeing it said unto Him, Behold, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath."

St. Augustine of Hippo: The Jews charged the Lord's disciples with breaking the Sabbath rather than with theft. This was because it was commanded to the people of Israel in the Lawⁱ that they should not seize anyone as a thief in their fields, unless he tried to carry anything away with him. But if anyone touched only what he needed to eat, they allowed him to depart freely and without penalty. ⁴

St. Jerome: Observe that the first Apostles of the Savior broke the letter of the Sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionites,ⁱ who accept the other Apostles but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law.

The text then proceeds to their defense: "But he said unto them, Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry?" To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He recalls the ancient story that David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nobⁱ and was received by Ahimelech the Priest. He, having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests and Levites. He considered it a better action to deliver people from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God, for the preservation of a person is a sacrifice acceptable to God.

In this way, then, the Lord counters their objection, saying: If David is a holy man, and if you do not blame the high priest Ahimelech but consider hunger a valid excuse for their transgression of the Law, how can you not approve in the Apostles the same plea that you approve in others? Even here, however, there is a great difference. Those men ate the Levitical bread, and besides it being the solemn Sabbath, it was also the time of the new moon, during which David was sought at the banquet and had to flee the royal palace.

St. John Chrysostom: To clear His disciples, He brings forward the example of David, whose glory as a prophet was great among the Jews. Yet they could not answer here that this was lawful for him because he was a prophet, for it was not prophets, but only priests who were allowed to eat it. And the greater the person who did this, the stronger the defense of the disciples. Yet even though David was a prophet, those who were with him were not.

St. Jerome: Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of showbread before they had answered that they were pure from women.

St. John Chrysostom: But someone will say, "How is this example applicable to the question at hand?" For David did not transgress the Sabbath. Here the wisdom of Christ is shown, in that He brings forward an example more significant than breaking 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 no one. And again, He adds yet another answer, saying, "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?"

St. Jerome: It is as if He had said: You bring complaints against My disciples that on the Sabbath they rub heads of grain in their hands under the strain of hunger, and you yourselves profane the Sabbath by slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, and burning whole offerings on piles of wood. Also, according to the testimony of another Gospel,ⁱ you circumcise infants on the Sabbath. So, in keeping one law, you break the one concerning the Sabbath.

But the laws of God are never contrary to one another. Therefore, He wisely shows that where His disciples might be accused of transgressing the laws, they were following the examples of Ahimelech and David. And He turns this pretended charge of breaking the Sabbath back on His accusers, who do not have the plea of necessity.

St. John Chrysostom: But so that you cannot say to me that finding an example of another's sin does not excuse our own—indeed, where the action itself is accused and not the one who did it, we excuse the action. But this is not enough; He said what is even more significant: that they are blameless. See what powerful points He introduces: first, the place, in the Temple; second, the time, on the Sabbath; the setting aside of the Law, in the word "profane," not merely "break"; and that they are not only free from punishment but also from blame: "and are blameless."

This second example is not like the first one He gave concerning David, for that was done only once, by David who was not a priest, and it was a case of necessity. But this second action is done every Sabbath, by the priests, and according to the Law. Therefore, the disciples are to be held blameless not only by way of allowance, as the first case would establish, but by the strictness of the law itself.

But are the disciples priests? Yes, they are even greater than priests, inasmuch 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 to you, one greater than the Temple is here."

St. Jerome: The word 'hic' [Latin for 'here'] is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place, for the place that contains the Lord of the Temple is greater than the Temple itself.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It should be observed that one example is taken from royalty, like David, and the other from the priesthood, like those who profane the Sabbath for the service of the Temple. Therefore, the charge of rubbing the heads of grain can much less apply to Him who is truly both King and Priest. ⁵

St. John Chrysostom: And because what He had said seemed harsh to those who heard it, He again exhorts them to mercy, introducing His statement with emphasis, saying, "But if you had known what this means, 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

St. Jerome: We have explained above what "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" signifies. The words, "You would not have condemned the innocent," refer to the Apostles, and the meaning is: If you allow for the mercy of Ahimelech, in that he refreshed David when he was in danger of starving, why do you condemn My disciples?

St. John Chrysostom: Observe again how, in leading the discussion toward a defense for them, He shows His disciples to be beyond the need of any defense, and to be truly blameless, as He had said of the priests above. And He adds yet another argument that clears them of blame: "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Remigius of Auxerre: He calls Himself the Son of Man, and the meaning is: He whom you suppose to be a mere man is God, the Lord of all creatures and also of the Sabbath, and He therefore has the power to change the law as He pleases, because He made it.

St. Augustine of Hippo: He did not forbid His disciples to pluck the heads of grain on the Sabbath, so that He might convict both the Jews of that time and the Manichaeans who were to come, who will not pluck a plant for fear of committing a murder. ⁶

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Figuratively, first consider that this discourse was held "at that time"—that is, when He had given thanks to the Father for giving salvation to the Gentiles. The field is the world, the Sabbath is rest, and the grain is the ripening of those who believe for the harvest. Thus, His passing through the grainfield on the Sabbath represents the Lord's coming into the world during the rest provided by the Law. The hunger of the disciples is their desire for the salvation of humanity.

Rabanus Maurus: They pluck the heads of grain when they draw people away from devotion to the world; they rub them in their hands when they tear people's hearts away from the lusts of the flesh; they eat the grain when they incorporate those who are reformed into the body of the Church.

St. Augustine of Hippo: But no one passes into the body of Christ until he has been stripped of his fleshly clothing, according to the Apostle's words, "Put off the old man" (Ephesians 4:22). ⁷

Rabanus Maurus: They do this on the Sabbath—that is, in the hope of eternal rest, to which they invite others. Also, those who delight in meditating on the Scriptures walk through the grainfields with the Lord. They are hungry while they desire to find the bread of life—that is, the love of God—within the Scriptures. They pluck the heads of grain and rub them in their hands while they examine the testimonies to discover what lies hidden beneath the literal text, and they do this on the Sabbath—that is, while they are free from distracting thoughts.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: 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. Whereupon the Lord reminded them of deeds in which a prophecy was concealed under the guise of historical facts.

So that He might show the power of all things, He further added that this story contained the pattern of the work that was to come: "If you had known what this means, 'I will have mercy'..."; for the work of our salvation is not in the sacrifices of the Law, but in mercy. With the Law having ceased, we are saved by the mercy of God.

If they had understood this gift, 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, with the old sacrifices having ceased, the new dispensation of mercy came through them to the aid of all.

1. ord.
2. De Cons. Ev., ii, 34
3. Hom., xxxix
4. De Op. Monach., 23
5. Quaest in Matt., q. 10
6. cont. Faust., xvi, 28
7. Quaest. Ev., i, 2