Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aquinas - Matthew
CHAP . 12
12:1–8
1. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4. How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the Priests?
5. Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the Priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6. But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
GLOSS . (ord.) Having related the preaching together with the miracles of one year before John’s enquiry, He passes to those of another year, namely after the death of John, when Jesus is already in all things spoken against, and hence it is said, At that time Jesus passed through the corn fields on the sabbath day.
AUGUSTINE . (De Cons. Ev. ii. 34.) This which here follows is related both by Mark and Luke, without any question of discrepancy; indeed they do not say, At that time, so that Matthew has here perhaps preserved the order of time, they that of their recollection; unless we take the words in a wider sense, At that time, that is, the time in which these many and divers things were done, whence we may conceive that all these things happened after the death of John. For he is believed to have been beheaded a little after he sent his disciples to Christ. So that when he says at that time, he may mean only an indefinite time.
CHRYSOSTOM . (Hon. 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 being an 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.
JEROME . As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity of taking food because of the thronging of the multitude, and therefore they hungred as men. That they rub the ears of corn in their hands, and with them satisfy themselves, is a proof of an austere life, and of men who needed not prepared meats, but sought only simple food.
CHRYSOSTOM . Here admire the disciples, who are so limited in their desires, that they have no 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.
AUGUSTINE . (De Op. Monach. 23.) The Jews rather charged the Lord’s disciples with the breach of the sabbath than with theft; because it was commanded the people of Israel in the Law (Deut. 23:25.), that they should not lay hold of any as a thief in their fields, unless he sought to carry ought away with him; but if any touched only what he needed to eat, him they suffered to depart with impunity free.
JEROME . Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionitesa, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace.
CHRYSOSTOM . 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 were with him were not.
JEROME . Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of shew-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women.
CHRYSOSTOM . But some one will say, How is this instance applicable to the question in hand? For David did not transgress the sabbath. Herein is shewn 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?
JEROME . As though He had said, Ye bring complaints against my disciples, that on the sabbath they rub ears of corn in their hands, under stress of hunger, and ye yourselves profane the sabbath, slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, burning holocausts on piles of wood; also, on the testimony of another Gospel (John 7:23.), ye circumcise infants on the sabbath; so that in keeping one law, ye break that concerning the sabbath. But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shews that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation.
CHRYSOSTOM . But that you should not say to me, that to find an instance of another’s sin is not 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. But are the disciples Priests? yea, they are yet greater than Priests, forasmuch as He was there who is the Lord of the Temple, who is the reality and not the type; and therefore it is added, But I say unto you, one greater than the Temple is here.
JEROME . The word Hic is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place here, for that place is greater than the Temple which contains the Lord of the Temple.
AUGUSTINE . (Quæst. in Matt. q. 10.) It should be observed, that one example is taken from royal persons, as David, the other from priestly, as those who profane the sabbath for the service of the Temple, so that much less can the charge concerning the rubbing the ears of corn attach to Him who is indeed King and Priest.