The immediate connection between this section and what precedes is twofold. The first is the theme of rising opposition (11:2-13:53), and the second is the heavy yoke of Pharisaic tradition that made the Israelites weary and heavy laden (11:28-30).
Matthew recorded that Pharisaic opposition began when Jesus forgave sins (9:1-8). It increased when Jesus associated with tax collectors and sinners (9:9-13). Now it boiled over because Jesus did not observe the Pharisees' legalistic traditions.490
". . . the leaders (Pharisees), in charging the disciples with breaking the law by plucking grain on the sabbath and hence working, do what they heretofore have not done: they engage Jesus himself in direct debate (12:1-8)."491
12:1 "At that time"does not mean immediately after that but at approximately that time (cf. 9:3, 11, 14, 34; 10:25; 11:19). The Mosaic Law permitted the Israelites to do what the disciples did, namely pluck a few ears of grain as they passed through a field (Deut. 23:25).
12:2 The Pharisees criticized Jesus' disciples for doing what was unlawful under Pharisaic tradition, namely "reaping"on the Sabbath.492
12:3-4 Jesus responded to the Pharisees' question with another in common rabbinic style (cf. v. 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31). The record of the incident He cited is in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, and the law governing the use of consecrated bread is in Exodus 25:30 and Leviticus 24:5-9. The house of God that David entered was the tabernacle that then stood at Nob. David and his men ate consecrated bread that only the priests had a right to eat.
The present event may have occurred on a Sabbath day, though that is not certain (cf. 1 Sam. 21:5-6). That factor is inconsequential as is the fact that David ate after lying to the priests. Another inconsequential feature is that David's men were very hungry, but Jesus' disciples were evidently not. Jesus drew this illustration from a time in David's life when Israel's leadership was rejecting him. The Son of David was now experiencing similar rejection.
David ate even though it was unlawful for him to do so yet the Old Testament did not condemn him for his act. Therefore the Pharisees should not condemn Jesus' disciples for doing something Scripture did not condemn David's men for doing. Jesus was arguing against the Pharisees' approach to Scripture more than their view of the Sabbath.
Jesus' disciples were not breaking any Old Testament command concerning Sabbath observance. These laws aimed primarily at prohibiting regular work on the Sabbath. The Old Testament set aside a regulation in the law for David and his men in the sense that it did not condemn them for what they did (cf. 2 Chron. 30:18-20). Who David was was an important factor in this concession. He was the Lord's anointed who occupied a special place in Israel. If anyone had a right to do what David did, David did. Could not Jesus then set aside a Pharisaic law that had no basis in the Old Testament for Himself and His men? By arguing this way Jesus was claiming that He was at least as important as David was. The parallels between David and Jesus make Jesus' veiled claim to being the Son of David obvious.
12:5-6 Jesus' second argument came from Numbers 28:9-10. Technically the priests broke the Sabbath every week by changing the consecrated bread and by offering the burnt offerings the law specified for that day. However the law considered the priests guiltless for doing this "work"on the Sabbath.
Jesus claimed that something greater than the temple was present. He used the neuter "something"to refer to Himself because He wanted to stress a quality about the temple that He as an individual shared with the temple.493What is greater than the temple is Messiah. The quality they shared was that God came to meet with His people in the temple and in Immanuel.
In Jesus' argument the temple was greater than the Sabbath. However now something greater than the temple was there, namely Messiah. Consequently Messiah takes precedence over the Sabbath. The Pharisees not only mishandled the law, but they also failed to perceive who Jesus was. As the temple's authority shielded the priests from guilt, so Jesus' authority as Messiah shielded His disciples from guilt. Jesus was not comparing but contrasting the priests' authority and His authority.
12:7-8 Jesus again criticized the Pharisees for failing to understand the Scriptures (cf. v. 3), and He quoted Hosea 6:6 again (cf. 9:13). Previously Jesus had cited this verse to show the Pharisees that they failed to recognize their own need. Now He used it to show them that they failed to recognize Him. The Jews in Hosea's day relied on mere ritual to satisfy God. The Pharisees were doing the same thing. They had not grasped the real significance of the law, as their criticism of Jesus' disciples demonstrated. Jesus accused the accusers and declared the disciples innocent.
As Son of Man, "this man,"Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. That is, His authority was greater than the authority that God had given the Sabbath over His people. Jesus had the authority to do anything He wished with the Sabbath. Significantly He abolished its observance when He terminated the whole Mosaic Code even as the temple effectively abolished it for the priests within the Mosaic system.
