How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them who were with him, but only for the priests?
All Commentaries on Matthew 12:4 Go To Matthew 12
John Chrysostom
AD 407
But Mark says, In the days of Abiathar the High Priest: not stating what was con trary to the history, but implying that he had two names; and adds that he gave unto him, indicating that herein also David had much to say for himself, since even the very priest suffered him; and not only suffered, but even ministered unto him. For tell me not that David was a prophet, for not even so was it lawful, but the privilege was the priests': wherefore also He added, but for the priests only. For though he were ten thousand times a prophet, yet was he not a priest; and though he were himself a prophet, yet not so they that were with him; since to them too we know that he gave.
What then, it might be said, were they all one with David? Why talk to me of dignity, where there seems to be a transgression of the law, even though it be the constraint of nature? Yea, and in this way too He has the more entirely acquitted them of the charges, in that he who is greater is found to have done the same.
And what is this to the question, one may say; for it was not surely the Sabbath, that he transgressed? Thou tellest me of that which is greater, and which especially shows the wisdom of Christ, that letting go the Sabbath, He brings another example greater than the Sabbath. For it is by no means the same, to break in upon a day, and to touch that holy table, which it was not lawful for any man to touch. Since the Sabbath indeed has been violated, and that often; nay rather it is continually being violated, both by circumcision, and by many other works; and at Jericho Joshua 6:15 too one may see the same to have happened; but this happened then only. So that He more than obtains the victory. How then did no man blame David, although there was yet another ground of charge heavier than this, that of the priests' murder, which had its origin from this? But He states it not, as applying himself to the present subject only.
