Matthew 12:3

Have ye not read] Jesus might have defended His disciples on purely technical grounds, maintaining that they had broken not the Law, but the interpretation which certain rabbis placed upon it. But instead of this, He laid down the principle that even the Divine Law itself, so far as it is purely ceremonial, is subservient to human needs, and can be broken without sin, for adequate cause. He took first the case of David, who together with his compardons ate the shewbread. David's act, which was sanctioned by the high priest, who at the time was the authorised interpreter of the Law, involved three distinct breaches of the divine Law, (1) the entering into the holy place, (2) the eating of the shewbread, (3) the breach of the sabbath, for such the day seems to have been.

Our Lord's statement of the case shows careful study of the OT. narrative (1 Samuel 21:1): e.g. it is not said in the OT. that David entered into the tabernacle, but it is inferred from Matthew 12:7, where he is seen by Doeg, who was 'detained before the Lord.' It is not said that David's attendants ate the shewbread, but it is inferred from Matthew 12:5. Nor is it said that the day was the sabbath. This is inferred from it being the day for the changing of the loaves (Matthew 12:6), which was the sabbath (Leviticus 24:8). As to the name of the high priest at this time (a well-known difficulty), see on Mark 2:26.

5 Or have ye not read?] see Numbers 28:9. They had read it, but not understood the principle which it implied. Our Lord alluded to a recognised Jewish practice. The rabbis said, 'There is no keeping of the sabbath in the temple.' 'The servile work which is done in the holy things is not servile.'