Matthew 12:4

Mat 12:4. Τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ, the house of God) That which might have been considered as a ground of hesitation is exhibited in full force by this expression; the tabernacle is meant, as the temple was built somewhat later.—τοὺς ἄρτους, the loaves) There is much of a ceremonial character in the Sabbath: otherwise no argument could have been derived from the shew-bread.—τῆς προθέσεως, of the laying before,[549] Lat. propositionis) = Hebrew פנים.[550]—ΕἸ ΜῊ, except) i.e., for any except.

[549] This is expressed in English by the descriptive syllable Shew: so that, instead of saying with the Greeks and Latins—The bread of-the-laying-before, we say the Shew-Bread. Both idioms represent the same idea, viz., the bread that was laid before, or exhibited to, God.—(I. B.)

[550] לֶחֶם פָנִים, shew-bread, lit. bread of faces. PATRICK on Exo 25:30, in voc. shew-bread, says, “In the Hebrew, bread of the face or presence, because it was set before the Ark of the Covenant, where God was present.—(I. B.)

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:4 . εἰσῆλθεν , ἔφαγον , he entered, they ate. Mark has ἔφαγεν . Weiss explains the harsh change of subject by combination of apostolic source with Mark. The two verbs point to two offences against the law: entering a holy place , eating holy bread . The sin of the disciples was against a holy time . But the principle involved was the same = ceremonial rules may be overruled by higher considerations. ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν . οὓς in Mark and Luke agreeing with ἄρτους , and here also in T. R., but ὃ doubtless the true reading; again presenting a problem in comparative exegesis ( vide Weiss-Meyer). ὃ ought to mean “which thing it was not lawful to do,” but it may be rendered “which kind of bread ,” etc. εἰ μὴ , except; absolutely unlawful, except in case of priests.

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

The Hebrews call it bread of faces, because it stood before the Lord all the weeks upon the golden table appointed to that service, Lev. 24:6.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?--No example could be more apposite than this. The man after God's own heart, of whom the Jews ever boasted, when suffering in God's cause and straitened for provisions, asked and obtained from the high priest what, according to the law, it was illegal for anyone save the priests to touch. Mark (Mar 2:26) says this occurred "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." But this means not during his high priesthood--for it was under that of his father Ahimelech--but simply, in his time. Ahimelech was soon succeeded by Abiathar, whose connection with David, and prominence during his reign, may account for his name, rather than his father's, being here introduced. Yet there is not a little confusion in what is said of these priests in different parts of the Old Testament. Thus he is called both the son of the father of Ahimelech (Sa1 22:20; Sa2 8:17); and Ahimelech is called Ahiah (Sa1 14:3), and Abimelech (Ch1 18:16).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 4. See Clarke on Mt 12:3.

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

(4) How he entered into the house of God.—Strictly speaking, it was in the tabernacle at Nob, where Ahimelech (possibly assisted by Abiathar, Mar_2:26) was ministering as high priest (1Sa_21:6). The shewbread, or “bread of oblation,” consisted of twelve loaves, in two rows of six each, which were offered every Sabbath day (Exo_25:30; Exo_40:23; Lev_24:5-9), the loaves of the previous week being then removed and reserved for the exclusive use of the priests. The necessity of the case, however, was in this instance allowed to override the ceremonial ordinance, and our Lord teaches men through that single instance to see the general principle that when positive commands and necessities involving the good of man come into collision, the latter, not the former, must prevail.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. the shewbread] Literally, bread of setting forth, i. e. bread that was set forth in the sanctuary. It was also called “continual bread” as being set forth perpetually before the Lord, hence the Hebrew name, “bread of the presence.” Twelve loaves or cakes were placed in two “piles” (rather than “rows,” Lev_24:6) on the “pure table” every Sabbath. On each pile was put a golden cup of frankincense. See Exo_25:30; Lev_24:6-8; Josephus, Ant. iii. 10. 7.

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.

How he entered into the house of God,.... Not the temple, which was not then built; but the tabernacle, which was then at Nob, the city of the priests, and which probably adjoined to Abimelech's house:

and did eat the shewbread; for that this is meant by the hallowed bread, in Sa1 21:6 is certain; though R. Joseph Kimchi (n) thinks it was the bread of the thank offering; to which R. Levi ben Getsom (o) seems to incline: but the general sense of the Jewish doctors (p) is, that it was the showbread; and which is very clear from that text, and is rightly affirmed by Christ;

which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests: see Lev 24:5 and so the Jews say that this bread , "is forbidden to strangers" (q); that is, to any but the priests, which, after the burning of the frankincense, was divided equally among them: that course of priests that came into the service had six cakes, and that which went out six; though the high priest had a right to half himself, but he did not use to take it, it being judged not to his honour to do so (r). No hint is here given, nor in the history, in Sa1 21:1 that it was on the sabbath day that David came to Ahimelech, and ate the showbread; but this is observed, and disputed, by the Jewish writers. Some indeed are in a doubt about it; but others (s) readily give into it, that it was on the sabbath day, which he chose to flee in, for the greater safety and preservation of his life: and indeed it seems reasonable it should be on that day; since on that day only the showbread was removed from the table, and other loaves put in the room. One of their writers (t) says,

"that showbread was not to be eaten, but on the day, and night of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath David came there.''

Now our Lord's argument stands thus, that if David, a holy, good man, and, the men that were with him, who were men of religion and conscience, when in great distress, through hunger, ate of the showbread, which was unlawful for any to eat of but priests, the high priest himself assenting to it; then it could not be criminal in his disciples, when an hungred, to pluck, rub, and eat a few ears of corn, which were lawful for any man to eat, even though it was on the sabbath day: and for the further vindication of them, he adds,

(n) Apud R. David Kimchi in 1 Sam. xxi. 6. (o) In ib. (p) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 95. 2. R. David Kimchi, Abarbinel & Laniado in 1 Sam. xxi. 6. (q) Laniado & Abarbinel in ib. (r) Maimon. Hilch. Tamidin, c. 4. sect. 12. 14. (s) Bemidbar Rabba Parash. 23. fol. 231. 9. Laniado Cli Jaker, fol. 226. 4. & 227. 2, 3, 4. & Jelammedenu in ib. (t) R. Isaiah in 1 Sam. xxi. 5.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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?

Ver. 4. And did eat the shewbread] The bread of proposition, {a} as the Greek text hath it; the face bread, as the Septuagint call it; or that which was daily set before the Lord, to remind him, as it were, of the twelve tribes by those twelve loaves; and to teach us to labour every day in the week (and not on the Sabbath only) for the bread that endureth to everlasting life; which the Son of man will give to every hungry David, Joh 6:27.

{a} αρτους προθεσεως, ενωπιους προκειμενους.

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.

How he entered into the house of God - That is, the “tabernacle,” the temple not being then built.

Have ye not read in the law? - In the law, or in the books of Moses.

Profane the Sabbath - He referred them to the conduct of the priests also. On the Sabbath days they were engaged, as well as on other days, in killing beasts for sacrifice, Num 28:9-10. Two lambs were killed on the Sabbath, in addition to the daily sacrifice. The priests must be engaged in killing them, and making fires to burn them in sacrifice, whereas to kindle a fire was expressly forbidden the Jews on the Sabbath, Exo 35:3. They did that which, for other persons to do, would have been “profaning” the Sabbath. Yet they were blameless. They did what was necessary and commanded. This was done in the very temple, too, the place of holiness, where the law should be most strictly observed.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

How he entered, &c. The house of God was then at Nobe. In St. Mark, the high priest is called Abiathar. See Chap. ii. 26. To this difficulty some answer, that the father and son bore these two names, Achimelec and Abiathar. This they attempt to prove from 2 Kings viii. 19, and 1 Paralipomenon xxiv. 3. Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelec, was present, and sanctioned the action of his father, thus making it his own. Others again contend, that it ought to have been translated, in the chapter called Abiathar, instead of under Abiathar: for the Jews divided the Scriptures into parts, and called them by the names of the most remarkable person or thing spoken of in them. Thus Romans, ii. 2. In Elias, means in the part called Elias. --- The loaves of proposition. So were called the twelve loaves which were placed before the sanctuary, in the temple of God. (Challoner) --- These were exposed every sabbath, on the golden table, before the Lord. (Bible de Vence)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

4. That Sunday is the “Lord’s day,” is clear from early Christian history; that it is the weekly holy day of the Christian dispensation is clear, because this day is alone mentioned as a sacred day after the resurrection; it is not identical with the overlaid Jewish Sabbaths, for they are abolished. It is, therefore, by necessity identical with the universal creational Sabbath, which is perpetual in its obligations.

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

How he entered into the house of God, and did eat; rather, and they did eat, with Revised Version margin (efagon), the simple plural verb laying the action less at David"s door than does the phrase in the parallel passages he gave" them to eat. Observe that the mention of ordinary people, like David"s attendants, adds to the force of our Lord"s illustration. The shew-bread. (Exo_25:30 Lev_24:5-7) Which . Which kind of food (o). Was not lawful (ouk exon hn). Reminding the Pharisees of their own words in ver. 2. For him to eat, neither for them which were with him, bat only for the priests? (Lev_24:9)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He entered into the house of God - Into the tabernacle. The temple was not yet built. The show bread - So they called the bread which the priest, who served that week, put every Sabbath day on the golden table that was in the holy place, before the Lord. The loaves were twelve in number, and represented the twelve tribes of Israel: when the new were brought, the stale were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. 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. Entered into the house of God. The tabernacle at Nob The temple had not been built. The shew bread. Twelve loaves placed upon a table in the holy place as a symbol of the communion of the twelve tribes with God, and a type of the Bread of Life to be given to the whole world. They were kept a week, renewed, and the old loaves eaten by the priests. If David could take these under necessity, so could Christ's disciples pluck corn under necessity.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

4. ὃ for οὕς.

4. τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως. Literally, ‘loaves of the setting forth,’ i.e. the bread that was set forth in the sanctuary. It was also called ‘continual bread’ as being set forth perpetually before the Lord, hence the Hebrew name, ‘bread of the presence.’ Twelve loaves or cakes were placed in two ‘piles’ (rather than ‘rows,’ Lev 24:6) on the ‘pure table’ every Sabbath. On each pile was put a golden cup of frankincense. See Exo 25:30; Lev 24:6-8; Josephus, Ant. III. 10. 7.

τῆς προθέσεως. This use of the attribute genitive is very frequent in the Hebrew language, which has few adjectives in proportion to the substantives. Adjectives of material are almost entirely wanting (Rödiger’s Gesenius Hebr. Gram. p. 236). The construction however belongs also to Greek syntax, μέλαινα δʼ ἄστρων … εὐφρόνη ‘starry night.’ Soph. El. 19. λευκῆς χιόνος πτέρυγι. Ant. 114. ‘a snowy wing.’ See Donaldson, Grk. Gr. 454.

ἐξὸν ἦν. A late analytic form for ἐξῆν.

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.] εἰ μή, in the construction, is not for ἀλλά, but belongs to οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν, and retains its proper meaning of except.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(M) 4. How he entered into the house of God, and ate the bread of the setting forth, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor those who were with him, but for the priests alone?] Mk. has: “How He entered into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the setting forth, which it is not lawful to eat save for priests, and gave also to those who were with him.” In clause a Mk. has ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως. Mt. omits as an erroneous reference (as do D latt. S1 in Mk.), Ahimelech (LXX. Abimelech) being high priest at the time; cf. 1 S 21:1.—τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως] is one of the renderings of the LXX. for the Hebrew לחם הפנים; cf. 2Ch 4:19. Other renderings are ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι, Exo 25:29; οἱ ἄρτοι οἱ προκείμενοι, of Exo 39:18; ἄρτοι τοῦ προσώπου, 1 K 21:6 For its meaning, see Deissm. Bib. Stud. p. 157.—ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετʼ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις] Mk. has: οὓς οὐκ ἐξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν. Mt. assimilates τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν to οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ of v. 3, and substitutes the easier dative for τοὺς ἱερεῖς.

Christ meets the complaint that His disciples work on the Sabbath by pleading necessity, and by quoting an analogous instance sanctioned by Scripture. The charge was based on the Rabbinical exposition of the law of the Sabbath. “Plucking the ears” was not in itself an offence, cf. Deu 23:25, but it came under the category of work forbidden on the Sabbath by scribal tradition. Against this tradition Christ appealed to Scripture. David ate the shewbread. That was an illegal act. But he was impelled by necessity. In the same way the action of His disciples was sanctioned by their need.

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