John Gill Commentary Matthew 12

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn ,
&c.] That is, the corn fields, as the other evangelists express it. It being on a sabbath day, it is very probable, that Christ and his disciples were going to some public place of worship, the way to which lay through some fields of corn, which were now ripe: for Luke says, it was on the "second sabbath after the first", or rather "the first sabbath after the second"; that is, the first sabbath after the second day of the passover, when the sheaf of the first fruit was offered, and harvest was begun.

And his disciples were an hungered ;
it being in the morning before they had broke their fast; and this circumstance is mentioned to show the reason of the following action, and to excuse it: at which the Pharisees were so much offended, and of which they accused them, as having done what was very criminal:

and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat ;
Luke adds, "rubbing them in their hands"; and so here in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, it is rendered, "they began to rub": as they passed along, they plucked off the ears of corn, either barley or wheat, and rubbed them in their hands, to get the grain clear of the husk, or beard, and eat them; contenting themselves with such mean and unprepared food, when the Jews on that day fed on the best of dainties ^F5 .

FOOTNOTES:

• F5: Vid. Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 30. sect. 7, 8, 9, 10.

But when the Pharisees saw it Who went along with him, or followed him, being employed to make observation on his words and actions,

they said to him; Luke says, "to them", the disciples: it seems, they took notice of this action both to Christ and his disciples, and first spoke of it to the one, and then to the other, or to both together:

behold your disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day! They mention it with astonishment and indignation. What they refer to is not their walking on the sabbath day: this they might do, according to their canons, provided they did not exceed two thousand cubits, which were a sabbath day's journey ^F6 nor was it their passing through the corn fields; though, according to them ^F7 , it was not lawful for a man to visit his gardens, (wytwdvw) , "or his fields", on the sabbath day, to see what they want, or how the fruits grow; for such walking is to do his own pleasure.' But this they knew was not the case of Christ, and his disciples, who were not proprietors of these fields:

Nor was it merely their plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing and eating them, which were not their own, but another man's; for this, according to the law, in (Deuteronomy 23:25) was lawful to be done: but what offended the Pharisees was, that it was done on a sabbath day, it being, as they interpret it, a servile work, and all one as reaping; though, in the law just mentioned, it is manifestly distinguished from it. Their rule is ^F8 'he that reaps (on the sabbath day) ever so little, is guilty (of stoning), (awh ruuq hdlwt vlwtw) , and "plucking of ears of corn is a derivative of reaping";' and is all one as its primitive, and punishable with the same kind of death, if done presumptuously:

So Philo the Jew observes ^F9 , that the rest of the sabbath not only reached to men, bond and free, and to beasts, but even to trees, and plants; and that (ou ernov ou) (kladon, all' oude petalon efeitai temein) , "it was not lawful to cut a plant, or branch, or so much as a leaf", on a sabbath day: and it may be what might make this offence of the disciples the more heinous was, that they plucked these ears, and ate them, and so broke their fast before morning prayer; for a man might not eat any thing on a sabbath day until morning prayers were ended in the synagogue, nor indeed on any other day; for they used not to eat bread till after they had offered the daily sacrifice, which was about the third hour of the day, or nine o'clock in the morning; nor did they eat till the fourth hour, or ten o'clock ^F11 .

FOOTNOTES:

• F6: Ib. c. 27. sect. 1.
• F7: R. Moses Kotzensis Mitzvot Tora prec. neg. 65.
• F8: Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 8. sect. 3. & 7. 1.
• F9: De Vita Mosis, 1. 2. p. 657.
• F11: Vid. Targum in Eccl. x. 17. Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 6. sect. 4.

But he said unto them, have you not read
If they had not read the Scriptures, they were very unfit persons either to be teachers, or censurers of others, and must have been very slothful and negligent; and if they had, they could not but have observed the case of David, which Christ produces in vindication of his disciples:

what David did when he was hungry ;
which was the case of the disciples, and is therefore mentioned; it being also the circumstance which could, and did excuse what was done by David and his men: and the Jews themselves own, that in case of hunger the showbread might be eaten, by those that were not priests; not only that which was removed from the table, but that which was upon it; yea, even when there was none to put in its room ^F12 ;

and that David was in the utmost distress, and therefore desired it, and it was granted him on that account. They represent him as thus saying to the priest ^F13 , ``when he found there was none but showbread, give it me, that we may not die with hunger; (tbv hxwd twvpn qpov) , "for danger of life drives away the sabbath";'' which perfectly agrees with our Lord's argument, and justifies the apostles conduct: and this was not a single fact of David's, but of others also;

and they that were with him ;
for though in (1 Samuel 21:1) he is said to be "alone, and no man with him"; yet this must be understood either comparatively, having but very few with him, and which were as none, considering his dignity;

or thus, though none came with him to Ahimelech, pretending to the priest he had a secret affair of the king's to transact; and therefore had left his servants in a certain place, and desires bread for himself and them; concerning whom the priest and he discourses, as may be seen in the place referred to: so that though no man was with him at the priest's house, yet there were some with him, and who partook with him in eating of the showbread.

FOOTNOTES:

• F12: R. David Kimchi in 1 Sam. xxi. 5.
• F13: Laniado Cli Jaker, fol. 227. 2.

How he entered into the house of God
Not the temple, which was not then built; but the tabernacle, which was then at Nob, the city of the priests, and which probably adjoined to Abimelech's house:

and did eat the shewbread ;
for that this is meant by the hallowed bread, in (1 Samuel 21:6) is certain; though R. Joseph Kimchi ^F14 thinks it was the bread of the thank offering; to which R. Levi ben Getsom

which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them who were
with him, but only for the priests :
see (Leviticus 24:5Leviticus 24:9) and so the Jews say that this bread (Myrzl rwoa) , "is forbidden to strangers" ^F17 ; that is, to any but the priests, which, after the burning of the frankincense, was divided equally among them: that course of priests that came into the service had six cakes, and that which went out six; though the high priest has a right to half himself, but he did not use to take it, it being judged not to his honour to do so ^F18 .

No hint is here given, nor in the history, in (1 Samuel 21:1) that it was on the sabbath day that David came to Ahimelech, and ate the showbread; but this is observed, and disputed, by the Jewish writers. Some indeed are in a doubt about it; but others ^F19 readily give into it, that it was on the sabbath day, which he chose to flee in, for the greater safety and preservation of his life: and indeed it seems reasonable it should be on that day; since on that day only the showbread was removed from the table, and other loaves put in the room.

One of their writers ^F20 says, ``that showbread was not to be eaten, but on the day, and night of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath David came there.''

Now our Lord's argument stands thus, that if David, a holy, good man, and, the men who were with him, who were men of religion and conscience, when hungry, ate of the showbread, which was unlawful for any to eat of but priests, the high priest himself assenting to it; then it could not be criminal in his disciples, when hungry, to pluck, rub, and eat a few ears of corn, which were lawful for any man to eat, even though it was on the sabbath day: and for the further vindication of them, he adds,

FOOTNOTES:

• F14: Apud R. David Kimchi in 1 Sam. xxi. 6.
• F17: Laniado & Abarbinel in ib.
• F18: Maimon. Hilch. Tamidin, c. 4. sect. 12. 14.
• F19: Bemidbar Rabba Parash. 23. fol. 231. 9. Laniado Cli Jaker, fol. 226. 4. & 227. 2, 3, 4. & Jelammedenu in ib.
• F20: R. Isaiah in 1 Sam. xxi. 5.

Or have you not read in the law (Numbers 28:9) by which law the priests were obliged, every sabbath day, to offer up two lambs for a burnt offering; to which were annexed many servile works, as killing the sacrifice, flaying it, cutting it in pieces, and laying it on the altar, cutting of wood, and putting that in order, and kindling the fire: from all which, it might be observed,

how that on the sabbath days, the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless. There were many things, which, according to the Jewish canons, the priests might do on the sabbath day; particularly they might slay the sacrifice: it was a rule with them, (tbv ta hjwxv htxd) , "that slaying drives away the sabbath" ^F21. They might also knead, make, and bake the showbread on the sabbath day: their general rule was, as R. Akiba says, that what was possible to be done on the evening of the sabbath, did not drive away the sabbath; but what was not possible to be done on the sabbath eve, did drive away the sabbath ^F23: so they might kill the passover, sprinkle its blood, wipe its inwards, and burn the fat on the sabbath day ^F24, with many other things.

What exculpated these men was, that what they did was done in the temple, and for the service of it, upon which an emphasis is put; and agrees with their canons, which say, that there is no prohibition in the sanctuary; (awh rth) (vdqmb twbv rwoya) , "that which is forbidden to be done on the sabbath, is lawful to be done in the sanctuary" ^F25: and whereas, it might be objected to the disciples of Christ, that they were not priests; and what they did was not in the temple, but in the fields; to this it is replied, in the following words:

FOOTNOTES:

• F21: T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 72. 2.
• F23: Misn. Menachot, c. 11. sect. 3.
• F24: Misn. Pesachim, c. 6. sect. 1. Maimon. Pesach. c. 1. sect. 18.
• F25: lb. sect. 16. & Hilchot Sabbat, c. 21. sect. 27.