←
Explanation for:
Matthew
12
:
4
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only?
13
more explanations
& daily audio-books
spoken by
– enjoy in Theosis App –
Start your
Bible-journey
with explanations
& daily audio-books
only 4$* per month
{"arr":[{"author-name":"Jerome of Stridon","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88dcd3432c6dd41375498_Jerome%20of%20Stridon.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"To counter the accusations of the Pharisees, He brings to mind a historical incident in which David, fleeing from Saul, arrived at Nob and met with the high priest Ahimelech to request bread. Although Ahimelech did not possess ordinary bread, he provided David with the consecrated bread, which was restricted to the priests and Levites, as recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. The high priest inquired whether David’s young men were ceremonially clean concerning their contact with women. When David explained that they had not been clean the previous or the third day, Ahimelech promptly offered the loaves, valuing, as the prophet articulates, mercy over sacrifice (Hosea 6:6). He prioritized alleviating the people's hunger over ritual sacrifice, for the salvation of humanity serves as a pleasing act to God. Thus, the Lord poses a question, essentially stating, ‘If David is righteous, and if Ahimelech faces no condemnation from you, yet both have violated the law based on a justification that holds only provisional weight due to the famine, why do you fail to acknowledge the same famine as valid justification for the apostles, yet recognize it as such for others? Even though a significant distinction exists here, for the former acted with their hands, while the latter consumed the loaves designated for the Levites. Furthermore, the sabbath was interwoven with the new moon's observance during which David was fleeing from the king's court and the festive gathering, as noted in 1 Samuel 20. It is important to highlight that neither David nor his companions partook of the loaves until they confirmed their ritual purity from any contact with women."},{"author-name":"Ephraem the Syrian","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88b589fc3e99eb7bb1839_Ephraem%20the%20Syrian.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"David should not have consumed the sacred loaves, as he was not a priest, although he certainly served a priestly role, being filled with the Holy Spirit. The Lord has established another principle for us. Initially, David was not permitted to approach the holy items, yet when persecution arose, he was granted the authority to partake of them. Similarly, following His own suffering, the Lord distributed His Body and Blood to His disciples and faithful followers."},{"author-name":"John Chrysostom","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88ea76859f9f8e2ffd3ee_John%20Chrysostom.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"In defending His disciples, He cites David as an example, and when He refers to Himself, He invokes the Father. Observe how significant this is: Is it not recorded what David did? This prophet was held in immense esteem. Consequently, Peter, while addressing the Jews, stated, ‘It is worthy to speak with boldness to you concerning the patriarch David, because he died and was buried’ (Acts 2:29). Why, then, does Christ not mention his exalted status at this moment or later on? Perhaps it is because of His lineage from David. If the Pharisees had shown compassion, He would have highlighted the hunger afflicting the disciples; however, in their malice and lack of humanity, He brings to their minds a historical incident. Mark, in noting that this happened under the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), does not contradict the event but merely indicates he had dual titles, emphasizing that he provided David with the showbread. This underscores the justification David possessed, for the priest not only permitted it but acted accordingly. Do not assert that David was a prophet. This did not entitle him to partake of the bread, as only priests held that privilege; thus it is stated, Only by a single priest. While David was indeed a revered prophet, he was not a priest. If he was a prophet, those accompanying him were not priests. Nevertheless, the bishop distributed bread to his companions as well. What is the implication here? Are the apostles to be equated with David? However, why do you bring up status when the issue at hand concerns a transgression of the law, even if necessitated by nature? This is precisely the point the Lord used to defend His disciples against the Pharisees' criticisms, by presenting a prophet of greater stature who had committed a similar act. But you may ask, how does this pertain to our discussion? For David did not contravene the Sabbath laws. You raise a crucial point that illustrates Christ's wisdom: by moving beyond the topic of the Sabbath, He highlights a matter of greater significance. Indeed, violating the Sabbath and partaking from that sacred meal, which no one was authorized to consume, hold different weights. The Sabbath is often transgressed and is consistently broken during circumcision and many other instances; similarly, the event at Jericho (Num. 6:4) illustrates this. Yet, the consumption of the sacred meal was limited to the time of David. Thus, Christ triumphs by providing the most significant examples. Why was David never accused, despite even graver reasons for accusation, such as the maltreatment of the priests? Yet, Christ chooses not to mention this, focusing solely on the primary issue."},{"author-name":"Augustine of Hippo","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88950a5c988a4fc06c7ae_Augustine%20of%20Hippo.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":5,"exegesis-text":"It should be noted that the act which the Jews considered unlawful was the disciples gathering grain on the Sabbath. One instance of this is seen in the actions of King David, while another arises from the priestly duties of those who, in their temple service, transgress the Sabbath. However, it is crucial to recognize that this infringement, the act of gathering grain on the Sabbath, pales in comparison to the significance of the One who is the true Sovereign and the genuine Priest, and who is thus Lord of the Sabbath."},{"author-name":"Theophylact of Bulgaria","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8989296bafed9104677d7_Theophylact%20of%20Bulgaria.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":11,"exegesis-text":"The Lord states that due to hunger, he sought something greater. The showbread refers to the loaves presented daily, totaling twelve—six on the right and six on the left. Although David held the status of a prophet, he was not permitted to partake of them, as only the priests had that right, and certainly not those accompanying him. Nevertheless, due to his hunger, he deserves mercy. This mirrors the experience of the disciples."},{"author-name":"Euthymios Zigabenos","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":11,"exegesis-text":"In the first book of Kings (1 Sam. 21:1ff.), it recounts the story of David, who, while fleeing from his father-in-law Saul, found himself in need of sustenance. Arriving at the city of the Lord's priests, Nob, he claimed to be on a mission from King Saul and requested some bread. At that moment, there were no other loaves available, and in his hunger, he took the sacred bread designated for offerings, which were presented in the temple. David consumed this bread along with his companions. This narrative illustrates a significant event. According to the law, such an act was not permissible. Jesus referenced this incident to the Pharisees in defense of His disciples, demonstrating that they were justified in their actions due to the pressing need they faced, similar to the situation of David, who had also transgressed the law regarding the showbread. Not only was David not rebuked by the priest present, but he was, in fact, given the loaves."},{"author-name":"Michail (Lusin)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c89550c567e172d15b3055_Michail%20(Lusin).png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"“To the dwelling of God,” referring to the Tabernacle, which was located in the city of Nome. According to the instructions given in the law (Leviticus 24:5-9), the priests were commanded to place twelve pure loaves of wheat, known as the showbread or the loaves of the presence, on a special table in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle (and later, the temple). These loaves, presented before the Lord (Exodus 40:23), were seen as offerings laid before the Divine Presence. Each Sabbath, the loaves would be exchanged for fresh loaves, and the priests alone were permitted to consume the removed loaves in this sacred space, which symbolized their unique role in the Lord’s service. When David faced hunger, at the suggestion of the high priest, he and his companions ate of these loaves, which appeared to contravene the law. Nevertheless, David was neither condemned nor criticized for this action, indicating that in times of necessity, the law may be set aside, a principle acknowledged by all legal systems. This parallel can be drawn to the Lord’s disciples, who, driven by hunger, picked grain on the Sabbath. Therefore, they were not to be judged for their actions on that holy day. One might inquire how this pertains to our discussion; did David violate the Sabbath? The Lord emphasizes a matter of greater significance than the Sabbath. To disobey the Sabbath in order to engage in this sacred meal, which is restricted to certain individuals, holds different weight. In this way, Christ demonstrates the precedence of more critical principles. And do not assert that David was a prophet, asserting that such a status absolves his actions regarding the law from justifying the disciples’ actions on the Sabbath. David’s prophetic role did not grant him the authority to consume the sacred loaves, as they were exclusively designated for the priests. Despite David’s esteemed position as a prophet, he was not a priest, nor were his companions."},{"author-name":"Abbot Panteleimon about the Trinity","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Chrysostom elaborates, stating that had the Pharisees possessed genuine compassion, the Lord would have called attention to the hunger that afflicted His disciples. However, due to their wickedness and lack of humanity, He cited the example of David: \\"HAVE YOU NOT READ WHAT DAVID DID WHEN HE AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM WERE IN NEED? HOW HE ENTERED THE HOUSE OF GOD, the tabernacle of meeting, located at that time in the city of Nob, AND ATE THE SHOWBREAD THAT WAS DEDICATED TO THE LORD, WHICH SHOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN Eaten BY THE PRIESTS?\\" Although David did not violate the Sabbath on this occasion, his actions hold greater significance than a mere transgression. The Sabbath has indeed been broken time and again, such as in instances involving the circumcision of a child. However, the consumption of the sacred bread, which is exclusively reserved for the priests, occurred under David’s leadership. Despite not being a priest, the high priest himself provided David with the holy loaves to sustain him during his difficult days of fleeing from Saul. If David, that esteemed king and prophet whom you particularly revere, brazenly transgressed the written law without facing condemnation due to his dire circumstances, how can my disciples be reproached for their innocent act of necessity driven by hunger?"},{"author-name":"Gladkow B.I.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88bf0ceef8c96e09a6521_Gladkow%20B.I..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Jesus’ clarification and reference to David's experience The Pharisees confronted Jesus for allegedly violating the Sabbath rest. In response, Jesus pointed out their profound misinterpretation of the Scriptures, stating, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and entered the house of God, ate the consecrated bread, which only the priests are permitted to eat?” The consecrated bread consisted of twelve loaves that were set before the Lord each Sabbath on a designated table, initially in the tabernacle and later in the temple, as outlined in Leviticus 24:5-9. These loaves were offered to God and were hence referred to as the showbread. New loaves were prepared each Sabbath, and the old ones were to be consumed by the priests in the sacred space where they were placed (Lev. 24:9).\\n\\nIn the First Book of Kings, chapter 21, it recounts that David, fleeing from Saul, approached Nob, where the priest Ahimelech was, and sought bread to relieve the hunger afflicting both himself and his companions. With no ordinary bread available, the priest provided David the showbread. The Gospel writer Mark refers to Abiathar as the high priest during this encounter, while Kings mentions Ahimelech. This discrepancy can be attributed to Abiathar being the son and successor of Ahimelech, and a close companion to David. During his father’s lifetime, Abiathar assisted him in priestly duties, so that after Ahimelech's passing, the name of Abiathar readily came to mind in connection with David, as he served as high priest in that era. Nonetheless, it is a historical fact that David entered the house of God under Abiathar and consumed the showbread (Mark 2:26).\\n\\nIf David’s desperate hunger led the high priest to set aside the regulations concerning the showbread, indicating that aiding a neighbor in distress takes precedence over rigid adherence to the law—showing that mercy is greater than sacrifice—then it stands to reason that Jesus’ disciples could similarly justify plucking grains to appease their hunger, thereby setting aside the Pharisaic interpretation of the Sabbath law."},{"author-name":"Lopuchin A.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c891400ee1341634d2276d_Lopuchin%20A.P..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The Saviour, recognizing with divine insight the treachery of the interrogators, swiftly defended His followers. He reaffirmed His authority as Lord of the Sabbath and cited instances from Scripture to support their actions, thereby elucidating the true significance of the Sabbath. \\"Have you not read,\\" He asked the Pharisees and the learned scribes, revealing their lack of understanding of the Scriptures they often flaunted before the people, \\"what David did when he was in need and hungry with those who were with him? How he entered the house of God on the Sabbath and consumed the showbread, which only the priests were permitted to eat?\\" If David, their esteemed king and revered figure, could so openly breach the letter of the law without reproach due to necessity, then why should the disciples be criticized for a harmless act to quell their hunger?"},{"author-name":"Paul Matwejewski","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8969f5be0d592d5a10576_Paul%20Matwejewski.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"In defending Himself and His followers against criticism, Jesus Christ directed His interlocutors to the revered example of David, known to every Israelite. He referred to the law of sacred deeds, which held authority even on the Sabbath, emphasized the primacy of acts of compassion over ritual observances, and addressed the overarching purpose of the Sabbath itself. Have you not read what David did when he faced a pressing need and was famished, along with his companions? How did he enter the house of God during the time of Abiathar the priest to take and consume the showbread, which was only permissible for the priests to eat? In the holy space of the Tabernacle, according to the Law of Moses, twelve unleavened loaves, known as the bread of presence, were placed upon a dedicated table before the Lord, and each Sabbath, these loaves were replaced with fresh ones. When David, pursued by Saul and in dire need, arrived at Nob where the Tabernacle was located, he received the permission of Ahimelech the high priest to take these sacred loaves to alleviate his hunger. Although David’s action could be seen as a breach of the customary norms, he was not condemned for this necessity-driven choice. As St. John Chrysostom remarks, ‘The Lord' defended His disciples from the accusations of the Pharisees by citing a prophet greater than they, who had acted similarly. The mention of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech by the Evangelist Mark can be understood as reflecting the legal inheritance of the priestly title, allowing the son to bear the name of the high priest even during his father’s lifetime."},{"author-name":"Alexander Gorsky","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8884037c1e1c51e1332e2_Alexander%20Gorsky.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"In the following Sabbaths, the significance of the Sabbath and the sanctity of its rest, which had been only briefly discussed earlier due to ongoing disputes with the Pharisees, were addressed with greater clarity and depth. The first instance occurred when the Lord’s disciples, while traveling from Jerusalem, passed through a grain field. Being hungry and having no other nourishment, they plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate. Another occasion arose during the miraculous restoration of a man with a withered hand in the synagogue, achieved solely by the Lord’s spoken word without any other action. This latter event took place in Galilee. \\n\\nIn defense of His disciples’ actions and His own healing of the man, the Lord pointed to the Pharisees, who scrutinized His every move, citing instances where righteous individuals had broken certain laws under pressing circumstances. For instance, David, while fleeing from Saul, requested the sacred showbread from Abiathar and consumed it with his followers (1 Sam. 21:1). He also highlighted their own breaches of Sabbath observance, as they permitted the rescue of a stray animal that had fallen into a pit. Moreover, even priests in the temple were not able to strictly observe the Sabbath commandment because of their sacrificial duties, and this was even more applicable on regular days. \\n\\nThe Lord emphasized that He represented something greater than the temple itself. Thus, by adhering to this higher principle, the disciples did not transgress the sacredness of the temple, which is but a transitory dwelling of the Almighty and His laws. Meanwhile, He reminded them never to overlook what the Lord stated through the prophet: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”—implying that compassion towards the man with the withered hand surpasses mere adherence to rest. We must remember that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Sabbath, like any other day, provides an opportunity to perform good deeds rather than commit evil; failing to act for the good of our neighbor also counts as neglect. Finally, the Lord reiterated what He had declared in Jerusalem: the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."},{"author-name":"Nekrasow A.A. Prof.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"As David entered the house of God and consumed the showbread, a specific incident is highlighted. While fleeing from Saul’s persecution, David and his companions, suffering from hunger, partook of the showbread."}]}
Support this project and get full access for only 4$/month
Commentarie text can’t be scrolled on PC at the moment. Please use your phone. We’re working on a fix.
