Luke 6:4

Luk 6:4 . Lk. contents himself with the essential fact: hunger, overruling a positive law concerning the shewbread. No reference to the high priest, as in Mk., and no additional instance of the Sabbath law superseded by higher interests, as in Mt. (Mat 12:5 ). The controversy no longer lives for him, and his accounts are apt to be colourless and secondary.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 4. After this verse, the Codex Bezae and two ancient MSS. quoted by Wechel, have the following extraordinary addition:

Τῃ αυτῃ ἡμερᾳ θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τῳ σαββατῳ, ειπεν αυτῳ, Ανθρωπε, ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις μακαριος ει; ει δε μη οιδας επικαταρατος, και παραβατης ειτου νομου.

On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said unto him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the law. Whence this strange addition proceeded, it is hard to tell. The meaning seems to be this: If thou now workest on the Jewish Sabbath, from a conviction that that Sabbath is abolished, and a new one instituted in its place, then happy art thou, for thou hast got Divine instruction in the nature of the Messiah's kingdom; but if thou doest this through a contempt for the law of God, then thou art accursed, forasmuch as thou art a transgressor of the law. The Itala version of the Codex Bezae, for παραβατης, transgressor, has this semi-barbaric word, trabaricator.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. did take and eat] St Mark says that this was “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” The priest who actually gave the bread to David was Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar.

the shewbread] Literally, ‘loaves of setting forth;’ “continual bread,” Num_4:7. “Bread of the Face,” i.e. set before the Presence of God, Lev_24:6-7. Comp. “Angel of the Face” Lev_24:6-8; Exo_25:30; Exo_29:33. They were twelve unleavened, loaves sprinkled with frankincense set on a little golden table.

which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone] “It shall be Aaron’s and his sons: and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him,” Lev_24:9. Thus David, their favourite saint and hero, had openly and fearlessly violated the letter of the Law with the full sanction of the High Priest, on the plea of necessity,—in other words because mercy is better than sacrifice; and because the higher law of moral obligation must always supersede the lower law of ceremonial. This was a proof by way of fact from the Kethubim or sacred books (Hagiographa); in St Matthew our Lord adds a still more striking argument by way of principle from the Law itself. By its own provisions the Priests in the laborious work of offering sacrifices violated the Sabbath and yet were blameless. Hence the later Jews deduced the remarkable rule that “there is no sabbatism in the Temple,” (Num_28:9). And Jesus added “But I say to you there is something greater (μεῖζον) than the Temple here.” The appeal to their own practice is given in Luk_14:5.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

Ver. 4. See Mat 12:3-4 Mar 2:24.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. How—After this verse two or three ancient manuscripts have a remarkable addition in the following words: “On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, He said unto him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the law.”

By this anecdote Jesus is made to assume that under his dispensation the Sabbath is abolished. If the man does not know this abolishment, and so is purposing to violate the Sabbath, he is, in heart and will, a transgressor. If, however, he knows what he is doing, namely, working under a dispensation without a sabbath, he is then a Christian, and works in accordance with conscience, right, and law. But as no such assumption of the abolition of the Sabbath is founded on any thing that Jesus ever taught, we hold the passage as not containing a genuine saying of Jesus.

(1.) We have said in our introduction to this volume, p. 6, that very few traces exist of our Lord’s sayings outside of our canonical gospels. Mr. Westcott, in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 445-453, has made a collection of all such sayings and doings to be found either in the canonical epistles or in the early Christian writers. The entire number, including those that appear to be variations of gospel passages, is thirty two. Very few of these could be accepted as genuine. The only one incontestably genuine is found in Act_20:35.

(2.) In regard to this present passage we fully agree with Grotius (against Van Oosterzee) that it was “interpolated by some Marcionite.”

Marcion was a so-called heretic, living near the close of the apostolic day. He was an anti-Judaic ultraist, who not only, with St. Paul, rejected the necessity of keeping the Mosaic law for salvation, but even contemned not only the Mosaic law, but the God of the Old Testament, as an evil being. The Ebionites and Marcionites were opposite extremes. (See note on Luk_6:20.)

Marcion accepted the Gospel of Luke, (being the most Gentile of the four,) but mutilated it to suit his own purposes. (See note on Mat_5:17.) Now the assumption that the Sabbath is abrogated under the New Testament is not only unsustainable and false, but; as being a repudiation of the law, even during the life of Jesus, and by Jesus, is truly Marcionite in its character. And being an interpolation, we believe Grotius was right in saying, “I think it was inserted by some Marcionite.”

But the passage, though spurious, strikingly illustrates how rectitude depends upon the interior motive, view, or purpose. If the man knew not the sabbath law to have been abolished, it was his purpose to break the law; and of that intentional transgression he was guilty. The law existed for him. Whatever is not of faith is sin.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 Sam. xxi, 6.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

shewbread

(See Scofield "Exo 25:30").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως. Vulg[132] panes propositionis. Literally, ‘loaves of setting forth;’ “continual bread,” Num 4:7; “Bread of the Face,” i.e. set before the Presence of God, Lev 24:6-7. Comp. “Angel of the Face,” Lev 24:6-8; Exo 25:30; Exo 29:33. They were twelve unleavened loaves sprinkled with frankincense placed on a little golden table.

[132] Vulg. Vulgate.

ἔλαβεν καὶ ἔφαγεν. St Mark says that this was “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” The priest who actually gave the bread to David was Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar.

οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς. “It shall be Aaron’s and his sons’: and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him,” Lev 24:9. Thus David, their favourite saint and hero, had openly and fearlessly violated the letter of the Law with the full sanction of the High Priest, on the plea of necessity,—in other words because mercy is better than sacrifice; and because the higher law of moral obligation must always supersede the lower law of ceremonial. This was a proof by way of fact from the Kethubhim or sacred books (Hagiographa); in St Matthew our Lord adds a still more striking argument by way of principle from the Law itself. By its own provisions the priests in the laborious work of offering sacrifices violated the Sabbath and yet were blameless. Hence the later Jews deduced the remarkable rule that “there is no sabbatism in the Temple” (Num 28:9). And Jesus added “But I say to you there is something greater (μεῖζον) than the Temple here.” The appeal to their own practice is given in Luk 14:5.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ. This is not stated in O.T., but may be inferred from his being seen by Doeg the Edomite, who was “detained before the Lord”: i.e. he was in the tabernacle as a proselyte, perhaps to be purified, or to perform a vow.

τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως. Lit. “the loaves of the setting forth.” These were the twelve loaves of wheaten bread placed before the Lord in the Holy Place every sabbath. The word “shewbread” first appears in Coverdale, probably from Luther’s Schaubrote. Wic. follows the panes propositionis of Vulg. with “looves of proposisiounn,” which is retained in Rhem. Tyn. has “loves of halowed breed.” In O.T. we have also ἄρτοι τοῦ προσώπου, i.e. of the presence of God (1Sa 21:6; Neh 10:33), or ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι (Exo 25:30), or ἄρτοι τῆς προσφορᾶς (1Ki 7:48), or again οἱ ἄρτοι οἱ διαπαντός, i.e. “the perpetual loaves” (Num 4:7). But the expression used here, Mat 12:4 and Mar 2:26, occurs Exo 39:36?, 40:23; 1Ch 9:32, 1Ch 23:29: comp. 2Ch 4:19. For the origin of ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων (Heb 9:2) comp. 2Ch 13:11, 2Ch 29:18. See Edersh. The Temple, pp. 152-157; Herzog, Pro_2 art. Schaubrote.

καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς μετʼ αὐτοῦ. This also is not stated in 1 Sam. 21., but it is implied in David’s asking for five loaves, and in Abimelech’s asking whether the wallets of the young men were Levitically clean. For ἔξεστιν c. acc. et inf. see on 20:22.

4. οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶτεσς τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὄτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται. 2. οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε. 2. ὐμῖν οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι νῦν, ὄτι πεινάσετε.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Did take. Peculiar to Luke.

The shew - bread. See on Mr 2:26.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.