What Sabbatarians are not understanding among other things is the change in dispensation which removed the ceremonial law. There was a change in dispensation when the Priests worked on the sabbath, another change of dispensation when David profaned the sabbath and was rejected like Jesus, and still yet another change in dispensation when the disciples and Jesus worked on the sabbath. So clearly Jesus has put aside the sabbath. What you really need to know is the person of Jesus was seen in David and His nature in the Temple. As long as Israel still rejects the Messiah, there is not going to be a sabbath. But now Jesus substitutes the sabbath with His presence and by the Holy Spirit indwelling now that the veil is rent. Pray on these words.

Matthew Chapter 12 is a transitional passage. What is said in it begins to decide the fate of the Jews. It occupies a most important place in the line of dispensation. We will be strangers to God’s word if we fail to recognize the change in the Lord’s relationship told of in this section. Before the time of this chapter the Lord is clearly for the Jews, and only in a hidden way is He shown to be for the Gentiles. But after the time of chapter 12 He is clearly for the Gentiles, thus intimating that the Jews have been rejected. In view of the fact that this chapter is transitional, the one thing which typifies the old relationship must be overturned. Since men have sinned, there can be no sabbath rest in actuality. Even God cannot rest. And if God has no rest, then men can have no rest either; for where there is sin, there can be no rest. This thought will become clearer as we take up the question of the sabbath below.

Matthew 12 - The Question of the Sabbath

Of the Ten Commandments nine are moral, but only one is ceremonial—the keeping of the sabbath. If the observance of the sabbath is set aside, it must indicate a change in dispensation: that somehow God’s special relationship with the nation of Israel has been temporarily broken off.

In the Old Testament, the sabbath possessed special meanings: (1) that the keeping of the sabbath was to remember God’s rest, (2) that according to Ezekiel 20.12 the sabbath was a sign of God’s covenant with the children of Israel, and (3) that according to Deuteronomy 5.15 the observing of the sabbath by the Jewish people was to remember how they were redeemed.

For these reasons the Jews placed great emphasis on the sabbath. They regarded it as the sign of God’s covenant with them as well as the remembrance of God’s rest and redemption. If this were shaken, all would be lost.

To the Jewish tradition it was all right to pluck ears of grain out in the fields, but attention must be paid to the time of doing so; for no work was ever to be done on the sabbath. The plucking of ears was work to the Jewish mind, and therefore working on the sabbath was sin. And so, because the disciples of Jesus were found plucking ears of grain on the sabbath, they were guilty of violating the sabbath rule. Yet here we find the Lord declaring that the disciples were guiltless in working on the sabbath: He defends them by saying that even if they have violated the sabbath they are nonetheless guiltless (see 12.7).

In the section on the healing of a man having a withered hand, the Lord argues that healing does not violate the sabbath; and in the section on plucking ears of grain, He asserts that even one who does violate the sabbath is still guiltless.

vv.3-4 Christ has not said that eating while hungry is necessarily a pardonable act. The question He means to address himself to is whether or not the sabbath should be kept, not whether there is a special allowance for the sabbath. If the Lord should maintain that because David was hungry it was all right for him to eat the shewbread, where would this leave the law? Christ could never support such a conclusion. What, then, is He really saying in this section? He is simply intimating here that what was originally given to the priest to eat can now be eaten by the king also. But this is a change of dispensation. Let us understand that the communication of God with the children of Israel in the Old Testament time underwent three different periods: first through the priests, then through the kings, and finally through the prophets. David represented the nation of Israel. Though he was God’s anointed, he at that time was rejected (he had to flee for his life). Yet God communicated with the children of Israel through David, thus putting aside the priests.

In former days, political persons such as Joshua were required to stand before the priest (see Num. 27.21-22), for that was the period of the priests. But later, according to 1 Samuel 2.35-36, the priest must walk before the anointed of the Lord. Hence the king becomes the first in order, while the priest now stands second.

The fact of David’s eating the shewbread indicates how the priests and their functions had been downgraded. It was not at all an exception. David had not sinned. He could eat not only on that day but on every other day; for the time had changed. On the occasion when David had eaten the shewbread, it was at the time of his rejection. Likewise, the fact that here in Matthew 12.1 we see that the disciples of Jesus had plucked ears of grain to eat also suggests the rejection of the Lord. Moreover, the Lord mentions not only David but also his followers (“and they that were with him”), and thus the Lord is including His own disciples in His rejection as well.

Thus, verses 3 and 4 relate how the king profaned the sabbath, and so indicate a change in dispensation.

v.6 “One greater than the temple is here”—The Lord himself is the place wherein the glory of God fills the most: for no matter what He does for the glory of God, He cannot be considered guilty. Thus the Lord is greater than the temple as well as the priests. Being as David, He reveals His person; being as the priest and the temple, He unveils the nature of His work. For the sabbath therefore, He substitutes His person and work. He sets the sabbath completely aside. If the problem of sin is not solved there can be no rest. As long as the Lord is rejected and people are still in sin, there is not going to be the sabbath. As long as He is as David and the temple, then what the Lord says here is that His disciples may profane the sabbath and yet be guiltless.