John Gill's Bible Commentary Ver. 3. But he said unto them, have ye not read , etc.] If they had not read the Scriptures, they were very unfit persons either to be teachers, or censurers of others, and must have been very slothful and negligent; and if they had, they could not but have observed the case of David, which Christ produces in vindication of his disciples: what David did when he was an hungred ; which was the case of the disciples, and is therefore mentioned; it being also the circumstance which could, and did excuse what was done by David and his men: and the Jews themselves own, that in case of hunger the showbread might be eaten, by those that were not priests; not only that which was removed from the table, but that which was upon it; yea, even when there was none to put in its room f712 ; and that David was in the utmost distress, and therefore desired it, and it was granted him on that account. They represent him as thus saying to the priest f713 , “when he found there was none but showbread, give it me, that we may not die with hunger; tbç hjwd twçpn qpsç , “for danger of life drives away the sabbath”;” which perfectly agrees with our Lord’s argument, and justifies the apostles conduct: and this was not a single fact of David’s, but of others also; and they that were with him ; for though in ( 1 Samuel 21:1) he is said to be “alone, and no man with him”; yet this must be understood either comparatively, having but very few with him, and which were as none, considering his dignity; or thus, though none came with him to Ahimelech, pretending to the priest he had a secret affair of the king’s to transact; and therefore had left his servants in a certain place, and desires bread for himself and them; concerning whom the priest and he discourses, as may be seen in the place referred to: so that though no man was with him at the priest’s house, yet there were some with him, and who partook with him in eating of the showbread.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 1-8 - Being in the corn-fields, the disciples began to pluck the ears of corn: the law of God allowed it, De 23:25. This was slender provisio for Christ and his disciples; but they were content with it. The Pharisees did not quarrel with them for taking another man's corn, but for doing it on the sabbath day. Christ came to free his followers, no only from the corruptions of the Pharisees, but from their unscriptura rules, and justified what they did. The greatest shall not have their lusts indulged, but the meanest shall have their wants considered Those labours are lawful on the sabbath day which are necessary, an sabbath rest is to froward, not to hinder sabbath worship. Needfu provision for health and food is to be made; but when servants are kep at home, and families become a scene of hurry and confusion on the Lord's day, to furnish a feast for visitors, or for indulgence, the case is very different. Such things as these, and many others commo among professors, are to be blamed. The resting on the sabbath wa ordained for man's good, De 5:14. No law must be understood so as to contradict its own end. And as Christ is the Lord of the sabbath, it is fit the day and the work of it should be dedicated to him.
Greek Textus Receptus
ο 3588 T-NSM δε 1161 CONJ ειπεν 2036 5627 V-2AAI-3S αυτοις 846 P-DPM ουκ 3756 PRT-N ανεγνωτε 314 5627 V-2AAI-2P τι 5101 I-ASN εποιησεν 4160 5656 V-AAI-3S δαβιδ 1138 N-PRI οτε 3753 ADV επεινασεν 3983 5656 V-AAI-3S αυτος 846 P-NSM και 2532 CONJ οι 3588 T-NPM μετ 3326 PREP αυτου 846 P-GSM
Robertson's NT Word Studies
12:3 {What David did} (ti epoiesen daueid). From the necessity of hunger. The first defence made by Christ appeals to the conduct of David (#2Sa 21:6). David and those with him did "what was not lawful" (ho ouk exon en) precisely the charge made against the disciples (ho ouk exestin in verse #2).
