For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
All Commentaries on Matthew 12:8 Go To Matthew 12
John Chrysostom
AD 407
Hom., xxxix: Why then did He lead them through the corn fields on the Sabbath, seeing He knew all things, unless He desired to break the sabbath? This he desired indeed, but not absolutely; therefore He broke it not without cause, but furnished a sufficient reason; so that He both caused the Law to cease, and yet offended not against it.Thus in order to soften the Jews, He here introduces a natural necessity; this is what is said, “And his disciples beingan hungred, began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.” Although in things which are manifestly sinful, there can be no excuse; he who kills another cannot plead rage, nor he who commits adultery, lust, or any other cause; yet here saying that the disciples were hungry, He delivers them from all accusation.
Here admire the disciples, who are so limited in their desires, that they haveno care of the things of the body, but despise the support of the flesh; they are assailed by hunger, and yet they go not away from Christ; for had not they been hard pressed by hunger, they would not have done thus. What the Pharisees said to this is added, "The Pharisees seeing it said unto Him, Behold, thy disciples do what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.”.
To clear His disciples, He brings forward the instance of David, whose glory as a Prophet was great among the Jews. Yet they could not here answer that this was lawful for him, because he was a Prophet; for it was not Prophets, but Priests only who might eat. And the greater was he who did this, the greater is the defence of the disciples; yet though David was a Prophet, they that werewith him were not.
But some one will say, How is this instance applicable to the question in hand? For David did not transgress the sabbath. Herein is shown the wisdom of Christ, that He brings forward an instance stronger than 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 none. And again, He adds yet another answer, saying, “Or have ye not read in the Law, that on the sabbath days the Priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?”.
But that you should not say to me, that to find an instance of another’s sin isnot to excuse our own—indeed where the thing done and not the doer of it is accused, we excuse the thing done. But this is not enough, He said what is yet more, that they are blameless. But see how great things He brings in; first, the place, in the Temple; secondly, the time, on the sabbath; the setting aside the Law, in the word “profane,” not merely break; and that they are not only free from punishment but from blame; “and are blameless. "And this second instance is not like the first which He gave respecting David; for that was done but once, by David who was not a Priest, and was a case of necessity; but this second is done every Sabbath, and by the Priests, and according to the Law. So that not only by indulgence, as the first case would establish, but by the strict law the disciples are to be held blameless.
And because what He had said seemed hard to those that heard it, He again exhorts to mercy, introducing His discourse with emphasis, saying, “But had yeknown what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would never have condemned the innocent.”.
Observe again how in leading the discourse towards an apology for them, Heshews His disciples to be above the need of any apology, and to be indeed blameless, as He had said above of the Priests. And He adds yet another plea which clears them of blame, “For the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath.”
