Matthew 12:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Mark mentions that this incident occurred during the high priesthood of Abiathar (Mark 2:26), which does not contradict the historical record but rather indicates he held two titles, also showing that he provided the showbread to David, thus illustrating the significant justification David had, as even the priest himself permitted it, and indeed acted in accordance with it. Do not assert to me that David was a prophet, for that alone did not grant him the entitlement to eat, as only priests held such an honor; thus it is stated, “Only by a single priest.” While David was certainly a distinguished prophet, he was not a priest. If he is considered a prophet, then those with him could not be regarded as such. Yet, during this time, the priest also distributed bread to them. What does this imply? Are the apostles on par with David? But why discuss dignity when it appears to contravene the law, even if necessity dictated it? This is precisely what the Lord defended His disciples against in the face of the Pharisees' criticism, by citing a prophet greater than they who had acted similarly. But how, you may ask, can this relate to our discussion? For David did not violate the Sabbath. You present an important point that highlights the wisdom of Christ; as He shifts the conversation away from the Sabbath, He directs attention to a matter more significant than the Sabbath itself. Indeed, breaking the day and partaking of that sacred meal, which was reserved for certain individuals, are not of equal weight. The Sabbath has frequently been disregarded and is regularly set aside at circumcision and on various other occasions; this was also observed at the taking of Jericho (Num. 6:4). However, participation in that sacred meal occurred solely in the time of David. Thus, Christ gains ground by providing the most relevant examples. Why was there no accusation against David, despite compelling reasons to do so, notably the strife involving the priests during this event? Yet, Christ chooses not to elaborate on this matter, focusing instead solely on the principle at hand.

He chose to save individuals from the peril of starvation rather than adhere strictly to sacrificial laws, believing that rescuing people is a service that is pleasing to God. Thus, the Lord raises a challenge, stating, “If David is righteous and if Ahimelech is not deemed guilty by you, yet both violated the law based on justifications that hold only marginal validity, particularly in light of famine, then why do you not acknowledge such necessity as a valid excuse for the apostles, even while recognizing it in others?” There is, after all, a distinct difference; those who took from the ears did so by their hands, while the others consumed the priests' loaves. The observance of the Sabbath also coincided with the time of the new moon, during which David was evading capture from the royal palace amid festivities, as referenced in 1 Samuel 20. It's important to note that neither David nor his companions partook of the loaves until they confirmed their purity from contact with women.

The Sabbath has been breached, as seen in examples like the circumcision of a child, yet the sharing of the sacred meal—an honor reserved solely for the priests—occurred under David’s circumstances. Though not a priest himself, the high priest provided him the consecrated loaves to sustain him during his troubled flight from Saul. If David, the esteemed king and prophet you revere, openly disregarded the written law and faced no condemnation for it due to his pressing need, why then should my disciples be reprimanded for their innocent act driven by hunger?

In response to the criticisms from the Pharisees, who watched His every move, the Lord cited instances where the holiness of the law was bent by righteous individuals in times of necessity. For example, David, while fleeing from Saul, asked Abiathar for the consecrated bread and shared it with his followers (1 Sam. 21:1). He reminded them that they themselves breached the Sabbath by rescuing a fallen animal from a pit, and how even the priests in the temple could not adhere strictly to the commandment of rest due to their responsibilities in offering sacrifices, especially on ordinary days. The Lord emphasized that something greater than the temple was present. The disciples, therefore, by following this higher principle, were not in violation of the temple, which represents the transient dwelling of the Almighty and His laws. Additionally, the Lord urged them to remember the words of the prophet: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," indicating that mercy shown to the man with the withered hand is more significant than merely maintaining a passive observance of rest; the Sabbath is intended for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. Every Sabbath, like any other day, is meant for performing good rather than engaging in evil, and the neglect of a righteous deed that benefits a neighbor is likewise sinful. Ultimately, the Lord reiterated what He had stated in Jerusalem: the Son of Man is also the Lord of the Sabbath.

Each Sabbath, the loaves were replaced with fresh ones, and the priests were allowed to consume the old ones in the sacred space where they had been arranged (Lev. 24:9). In the First Book of Kings, chapter 21, we learn that David, pursued by Saul, visited Nob, where the Tabernacle was located, and sought sustenance from the priest Ahimelech, who provided him with the showbread as he had no ordinary bread available. In recounting this account, the Evangelist Mark refers to Abiathar as the high priest who provided David with the showbread, whereas Ahimelech is named in the Kings narrative. This discrepancy arises because Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and succeeded him in the priesthood, having been a companion to David. Since Abiathar served as high priest for a significant duration under King David, his name naturally came to mind in connection with David's story. Nevertheless, it remains historically accurate that David entered the Lord's house under the high priest Abiathar and ate the showbread (Mark 2:26). The fact that David’s need compelled the high priest to set aside the regulation concerning the showbread illustrates that love and care for others surpass a rigid adherence to the law, just as mercy is valued more than sacrifice. Thus, if David’s hunger justified his actions, then it follows that Jesus' disciples, by satisfying their own hunger with grain taken from the fields, were also justified in their actions on the Sabbath in light of the Pharisees' interpretation of the law.

How he entered the house of God on the Sabbath and ate the showbread, which only the priests were permitted to eat?” If David, their revered king and saint, could so boldly transgress the law’s letter without being reproached due to his necessity, then why should the disciples be criticized for a harmless deed aimed at quelling their hunger?

In the dwelling of the Tabernacle, there was a special table where the priests, in accordance with the Law of Moses (Leviticus 24:5-9), placed twelve loaves of fine wheat, referred to as the bread of the Offering before the Lord (Exodus 40:23), which were replaced weekly. When David, fleeing from Saul and in need of nourishment, arrived at Nob, where the Tabernacle was located, he, with Ahimelech the high priest’s approval, took these sacred loaves to satisfy his hunger (1 Samuel 21:1-6). While David did not violate the Sabbath, he did circumvent both the law and customary practices due to necessity, yet he faced no condemnation for this act. As St. John Chrysostom noted, “the Lord,” by exemplifying a prophet greater than the Pharisees who performed similar deeds, shielded His disciples from their reproaches. The mention of Abiathar instead of his father Ahimelech by the Evangelist Mark (1 Samuel 23:6) can be sufficiently understood as the son, as the rightful heir to his father’s title, could have been referred to by the high priest's name even during his father’s lifetime.