3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (Matthew 12:3-6 KJV)
William Burkitt’s Commentary
In these words our Saviour defends the action of his disciples in plucking the ears of corn in their necessity, by a double argument.
1. From David’s example: necessity freed him from fault in eating the consecrated bread, which none but the priest might lawfully eat; for in cases of necessity, a ceremonial precept must give place to a moral duty: works of mercy and necessity, for preserving our lives, and the better fitting us for sabbath-services, are certainly lawful on the sabbath-day.
2. From the example of the priests in the temple who upon the sabbath do break the outward rest of the day, by killing their sacrifices, and many other acts of bodily labour, which would be accounted sabbath-profanation, did not the service of the temple require and justify it.
Now, saith our Saviour, if the temple-service can justify labour on the sabbath, I am greater than the temple, and my authority and service can justify what my disciples have done.
From the whole we learn, That acts of mercy, which tend to fit us for works of piety, not only may, but ought to be, done on the sabbath-day.