And it came to pass on [the] second-first sabbath, that he went through cornfields, and his disciples were plucking the ears and eating [them], rubbing [them] in their hands.
Luke dates this walk through the grainfields with a strange word: some Bibles read "on a Sabbath", others "the second-first Sabbath". Why mark the day, and why were the disciples eating raw grain by the road?
The word means "second-first". Israel's festival calendar explains it. After Passover came a great Sabbath, and then the day when the first sheaf of the new harvest was waved before God.
It was "second" in relation to that great day, the Passover Sabbath, but "first" of the seven that followed at once. So it was the first Sabbath after the sheaf was waved. No true Israelite would have counted it lawful to eat the grain until the Lord had received His portion.
Some early manuscripts drop the word altogether, and the reason is not hard to see.
The word occurs nowhere else, and it is hard to explain without exact knowledge of Jewish Scripture and custom. That easily accounts for copyists who chose to cut the knot rather than untie it. The word is deuteroproton. Nobody would create a needless difficulty by putting such a word in; but we can easily see why a few left out what looked hard to them, as it still looks hard to most readers.
The date matters because of a law attached to harvest. Until the first sheaf was waved before God, not a grain of the new crop could be eaten.
On the great Sabbath no godly Jew would have eaten ears of grain. The law forbade it: "You shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh, until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings" (Lev. 23:14). On the second-first Sabbath the sheaf had already been offered. So this rule did not apply to what the disciples did. The ceremony left them free to eat the newly ripened grain.
The sheaf had a fixed place in the days after Passover — and a meaning beyond the harvest.
The Passover came just before, as we know. The Passover lamb was killed at dusk on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan. The great Sabbath followed at once, and the next day the first sheaf of grain was waved before the Lord. It was the picture of Christ's resurrection. The grain of wheat had fallen into the ground and died, but was now risen again (John 12:24).
They were walking a public path, not raiding a farm. The law itself made room for what they did.
We learn from the parable of the sower that a public path often ran through the grainfields (Mark 4:4). As the disciples walked along, they began to pluck some of the ears of grain. They rubbed them in their hands and ate the early ripened grain. This was no breach of the law of private property. The law of Moses plainly allowed it: "If you go into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain" (Deut. 23:25).
The date also answers a charge the Pharisees never made.
What the Pharisees said confirms this reading. They found fault with the disciples for eating the ears of grain on the Sabbath. But they never charged them with eating before the sheaf was waved, which would have been a real offence.
There was nothing shocking in the act itself. What is shocking is who was doing it.
This was always allowed, and still is, in Eastern countries around the Holy Land — no doubt a remaining trace of the old traditional habit of the Jews. It is allowed as an act of kindness to the hungry. What a condition for the followers of the Lord Jesus to be in! What a proof of His shame and of their need!
Luke's aim in telling the story differs from Matthew's.
The Lord does not pluck the ears of grain Himself, but He defends the innocent, and He does it on moral ground. We do not find here the details laid out as in Matthew's Gospel. There the subject is much more the coming change of order; here it is more a matter of right and wrong. The Sabbath, the seal of the old covenant, was never given by God to hinder His goodness to the needy and wretched, though man abused it.
- The day. "Second-first" means second after the great Passover Sabbath, and first of the seven Sabbaths that followed.
- The sheaf. That day fell just after the first sheaf was waved before God — a picture of Christ risen, the grain of wheat that died and lives.
- The freedom. Until the first sheaf was waved before God, no one could eat the new grain. After that, the whole harvest was open.
- The field. The law let a traveller pluck ears by hand in a neighbour's field, but not cut them with a sickle.
- The hunger. The King's own followers ate raw grain by the roadside — the measure of His rejection, and the setting for His defence of them.
But some of the Pharisees said to them, Why do ye what is not lawful to do on the sabbath?
Scripture itself allowed a passer-by to pick grain by hand. The restriction that made this a Sabbath offence came from somewhere else.
Deuteronomy 23:25 gave them this permission. But the Pharisees had decided to append their own law to this Scripture by restricting it to six days of the week.
The charge collapses under examination. God's own law made room for the hungry.
The censure was a law of their own. It is a notion of men that looks at an outward fact and makes a system of it — man's constant danger. God had indeed ordained rest on the Sabbath day for man and beast. But nothing in the law of God forbade a hungry man to pluck ears of corn as he passed through a field to satisfy his need. It was fully in keeping with the goodness of God to provide from His people's plenty for such urgent need.
The Pharisees noticed the picking but not the poverty. Picking grain by hand was ordinary. The state of the men doing it was not.
This was always allowed, and still is, in Eastern countries around the Holy Land. It is allowed as an act of charity to the hungry. What a condition for the followers of the Lord Jesus to be in! What a proof of His shame and of their need!
Their hunger had a cause.
The Messiah was suffering rejection, and His disciples, because they were with Him, were in want.
The Pharisees aimed the question at the disciples. They never had to answer it themselves.
The Lord answered instead of the disciples... Luke points to the moral parallel in the history of the great king David. After his anointing, and before he came to the throne, David fell into such extreme need that the holy bread was made common for his sake. That was just the Lord's position now. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual when the anointed king and his followers lacked the barest necessities of life. For what did that imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation.
Their own added rules counted the rubbing of grain as work. The Lord could simply have exposed that.
They had piled up guards against any breach of the law — a hedge round the law. Under it, rubbing the ears of corn between the hands could be counted as work, though gathering grain for personal use, when hungry, was permitted. The Pharisees boldly appeal to Him about the conduct of His disciples in doing what was not lawful to do on the Sabbath. It was not unlawful in itself, or at other times, but they treated it as a violation of the day of rest. The Lord replies and clears them of the charge, but not at all in the way we would expect. He does not attack their human additions to the divine Word, or their fine-spun readings of it. He takes higher and stronger ground and exposes the whole condition of the people before God.
The last word moves from David to Jesus Himself.
The Lord closes this part of the subject with a declaration: "the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath." That is another reason, and a stronger one. David was not the Son of Man as Jesus was. The Son of Man had, in His own person and position, rights far above any ritual.
Behind the dispute lies a reversal: a gift turned into a burden.
In their ignorant zeal, under a thin veneer of piety, they had made the Sabbath a yoke of bondage too heavy to bear. The Lord declared with authority, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." God gave the seventh-day rest to bless man, not to punish him.
The failure was not ignorance of the rules but a heart untouched by the God whose rules they were.
The natural heart loves formality... Nothing deceives the heart like religion without a real turning of the heart to God. Nothing else betrays men into such glaring inconsistency. The men who quibbled about our Lord healing on the Sabbath day saw no wrong in plotting on that day to murder Him.
- Charge: The accusation rested on a rule men had added. God's own law let a hungry traveller pick grain by hand.
- Hunger: They missed the real scandal. The Messiah's own followers had nothing to eat but raw grain, and that showed how far His rejection had gone.
- Answer: The Lord answers for His disciples. He points to David, anointed but not yet king, eating the bread kept for priests.
- Higher ground: He will not argue about tradition. He exposes the whole condition of the nation before God.
- Lord: The final word is not a precedent but a person. The Son of Man holds rights above every ritual, and men had turned a day of blessing into a burden.
And Jesus answering said to them, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did when he hungered, he and those who were with him,
The Pharisees have just caught the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus does not argue about their rules. He points them back to an old story about a hungry king. Why answer a Sabbath charge with David? And what does that comparison say about the men making the accusation?
Jesus could have replied that no written law forbade what the disciples did. Instead He answered from Scripture, and one writer calls that answer a weapon we are meant to use too.
The human way of answering the objections of the Pharisees would have been to tell them that there was no law forbidding the deed done by the disciples... However, this is not the way divine wisdom chooses to silence their accusations... He wields once more the Sword of the Spirit and answers their unscriptural objections by His scriptural assertions. May we learn from it, and at all times, whether it is the Devil or his offspring who tempt us, use the Word in our defence.
Picking grain by hand was normal for a hungry traveller. What was not normal was who had to do it.
This was always allowed, and is still, in Eastern countries around the Holy Land — no doubt a remaining trace of the old traditional habit of the Jews. It is allowed as an act of charity to the hungry. What a condition for the followers of the Lord Jesus to be in! What a proof of His shame and of their need!
David was anointed king, but he was not yet on the throne. His hungry companions shared that rejection with him. One writer sees the Lord standing in exactly the same place.
Luke points to the moral parallel in the history of the great king David. David was anointed, but had not yet come to the throne — which was exactly the Lord's own position now. His need grew so extreme that the holy bread became common bread for his sake. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual when the anointed king and his followers lacked the barest necessities of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation.
Saul held the throne while God's chosen king ran for his life, and the bread set apart for the priests — the showbread — went to him instead. One writer sees the Pharisees treating their Messiah as Saul treated David.
The glory of God had left the temple. The Pharisees were despising and rejecting their Messiah, just as Saul's cruel and unrighteous rage once hunted David into exile. In David's day the letter of the ancient rules had to give way to the needs of the man who was the anointed king after God's own heart... "Granted, the showbread was only for the priests. But for them to keep their consecrated bread and let the anointed king starve would be a strange way to honour God and the king."
God had set that bread apart. One writer names what made it common again, and what that says about the men accusing Jesus.
David's hunger, and the hunger of those with him, is a picture of the greater One than David. He and His disciples passed through the grainfield hungry, forced to pluck ears of corn to eat. The sad scene on that Sabbath day proved that the people did not care for the little group led by the King. David was rejected and on the run. Then the holy things connected with the ceremonies God gave Israel stopped being holy. The sin was David's rejection... How ridiculous for these hypocrites to speak of Sabbath-keeping when they were rejecting the Lord of the Sabbath!
Jesus was not only defending His disciples. If the case held for David, it holds even more for the greater One standing in front of them.
Was this a sin? It was Saul's and the people's sin that there was no bread for David. It was their sin that the true anointed one was an outcast... If it had no sanctity in the presence of a rejected David, how much less in the presence of a rejected Christ? This was the argument; for certainly a greater than the priests and a greater than David was there. So this was a greater sin than in the ordinary days of Israel, or even in the special days of David. So the Lord turned the conviction of sin back on the heads of those who would have condemned the disciples.
- Rejection — Jesus points to David as God's anointed king, hunted by Saul. That rejection, not hunger alone, is the key to His whole reply.
- Hunger — the disciples scraped raw grain to eat. That proved their Master's shame and their need. The people did not care for the King among them.
- Common — when people refuse God's anointed, God will not hold to ritual. The consecrated bread lost its holiness rather than let the king starve.
- Greater — the rejection of David made the showbread common. The rejection of Christ makes the accusers' sin heavier still.
- Scripture — Jesus answered an unscriptural objection with the written Word. His followers are meant to do the same.
how he entered into the house of God and took the shewbread and ate, and gave to those also who were with him, which it is not lawful that [any] eat, unless the priests alone?
Jesus is charged with letting His disciples break the Sabbath. He answers with an old story: David ate bread that only priests were allowed to eat. Why was that act never condemned? And what does the answer say about the One telling the story?
The loaves David took were not ordinary food. They stood in the sanctuary as a picture of the nation before God, and only priests could eat them.
The Table held twelve cakes, or loaves. These stood for the twelve tribes of Israel. It is true that only the priests could eat the loaves, and only in the Holy Place. But they ate as representatives of all Israel. The priests were a tenth of all the children of Israel, and so stood as representatives of the whole.
All the weight falls on David's position when he took the bread. He was already anointed king, but not yet on the throne — and that was exactly where Jesus stood.
Luke points to the moral parallel in the story of the great king David. After his anointing, and before he came to the throne — which was just the Lord's position now — David was brought so low that the holy bread was made common for his sake. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual while the anointed king and his followers lacked the barest necessities of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation. How could God sanction holy bread in such a condition?
If hunger alone suspended the law, anyone could claim the exemption. One writer presses that objection hard.
This was not a doubtful point. It was not a question of human additions to the law, or of how the law was read. It went straight against the written law of Moses. How, then, could the Lord justify it? Was it on the ground of hunger alone? And was every hungry man entitled with David here to set the law aside?
The answer lies in how far the whole system had already collapsed. Four things made David's case different, and the last one was decisive.
There are matters that make a difference. First, the priesthood had badly failed in Israel. Second, the tabernacle service was in the wrong place, not the place God had chosen. Third, the ark was not there. And fourth, the true king was in exile and hungry because of persecution. That last point alone was reason enough for the priest Ahimelech to give the bread to David. Real need matters more than mere formal exactness.
The same writer sets a limit, so no one turns this into an excuse. The showbread rule was ritual; moral truth is another thing.
This was of course a ritual law, and in this exceptional case human need set it aside. Clearly no one may openly brush aside the moral principles of truth and righteousness to meet his passing needs. But ritual laws were a different matter... How much more, then, must the mere traditions of the Pharisees be set aside!
When God's anointed was cast out, the nation's sacred order lost its hold. What David did in his rejection points straight to Christ in His.
A rejected David had leapt over the barrier of the law when his need required it. For when God's Anointed was rejected and cast out, everything became in a way common. The Son of man was Lord of the sabbath — the Son of David, rejected like the son of Jesse, the chosen and anointed king. God set up this ordinance, and God stood above the ordinances He had set up. He was present in grace, and man's obligation gave way to the sovereignty of God.
The bread lost its guarded holiness for Israel. For those who believe, it came to mean something else.
At that time the holiness of the showbread was cancelled, for God's king had been cast out... So for Israel the holiness of the showbread was gone, and the bread had become as common as any other bread. But to the church it has become the symbol of a blessed truth. To eat together is the sign of fellowship, and we, made priests to God, have fellowship with one another as we eat of the bread from heaven.
- Bread — Twelve loaves stood for the twelve tribes. Only priests could eat them, and only in the Holy Place. David took what no ordinary Israelite could touch.
- Rejection — David's case matched Christ's own: anointed, not yet reigning, driven out.
- Need — Hunger alone settles nothing. The priesthood had failed, the ark was gone, and the true king was in exile. Real need outweighed formal exactness.
- Limit — A ceremonial rule gave way; moral righteousness never does. And if a God-given ritual could yield, Pharisee tradition had no standing at all.
- Table — Once Israel refused its king, the holy bread became common. For believers, made priests, it is shared food and fellowship.
And he said to them, The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.
On a Sabbath the disciples pick grain to eat, and the Pharisees object. Jesus answers not with a rule but with a claim about who He is.
Before making His claim, Jesus points back to David. God's chosen king was in need, and that need exposed the state of the nation.
Luke points to a moral parallel in the life of the great king David. David was anointed but had not yet come to the throne — which was exactly the Lord's position now. His need grew so extreme that the holy bread was made common for his sake. God, in a sense, refused to hold to ritual here. The anointed king and his followers lacked the barest necessities of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation.
David's story answers the objection. But Jesus rests His case on something else.
The Lord closes this part of the subject with the words, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath." So there is another reason, stronger still. David was not the Son of Man as Jesus was. The Son of Man had, in His own person and position, rights entirely superior to any ritual. He was entitled to set it aside. He would do so formally in due time, for this belonged to His personal glory.
The Sabbath was not a human custom. God set it up, which makes this claim larger than it first sounds.
Remember, this Lordship meant more than Adam's rule over the lower creation. This was Lordship over a divine institution which Adam never had. The Son of Man had power on earth to forgive sins. He had power on earth to regulate the Sabbath too, because, as Peter said to Cornelius, "He is Lord of all."
The Pharisees argued about a rule. The real question was standing in front of them.
Verse 5 emphasises His Person. God made man, at his creation, lord over the earthly creation. The Son of Man is Lord over a far wider sphere. He was not bound by the Sabbath; the Sabbath was at His disposal. Who then is this Son of Man? That was what the Pharisees did not know, but the Lord showed His greatness by this claim which He made.
The Sabbath marked the agreement between God and Israel. So who could stand above it?
The Sabbath was the sign of the covenant between Israel and God — rest after finished works... The Son of Man (Son of David, rejected like the son of Jesse, the chosen and anointed king) was Lord of the Sabbath. God set up this ordinance, and He was above the ordinances He had set up. He was present in grace, so man's obligation gave way to the sovereignty of God. And the Son of Man was there with the rights and the power of God.
His lordship works for people, not against them.
The Lord declared, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Now the Son of Man was present, and He was Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). He would not let God's kind institution become a weapon against His people's interests.
One question is left: what is the day finally for?
The ideal Sabbath is yet to come. So the apostle in the Letter to the Hebrews shows that the rest of God did not come in Old Testament times. Then he declares, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb. 4:9). Of this Sabbath rest the Son of Man is Lord, as He is the true Joshua to lead His own into that rest, and to keep them in it.
- Rejected — David was anointed king, yet he went hungry before he reached the throne. When God's chosen king is refused, the usual religious order gives way.
- Greater — Jesus does not argue about rules. He answers with who He is: David was not the Son of Man; Jesus is.
- Lord — His claim covers a divine institution, not just creation. He alone decides what the day is for.
- Sign — the Sabbath marked the covenant with Israel; its Maker stood above what He had made, present in grace.
- Rest — the Sabbath still points forward. The same Son of Man who is Lord of it will lead His people into the rest that remains.