But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said to him, “Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”
But he said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him; how he entered into God’s house, and ate the show bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law, that on the Sabbath day, the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? But I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you wouldn’t have condemned the guiltless.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7 The Hebrews call it bread of faces, because it…
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.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv2–7 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said…
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Ver. 2. Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful] This was as the proverb is, Sus Minervam, a pig is Minerva, when blind Pharisees will be teaching Christ how the Sabbath is to be sanctified. Not Hebrews only, but also Greeks and barbarians rested from work on the seventh day: witness Josephus, Clement Alexander, and Eusebius. Howbeit, to the Hebrews at Mount Sinai, God, for a special favour, made known his holy Sabbath, Neh 9:14, commanding them to do no servile work therein, Lev 23:7-8. This excludes not works of piety, charity, and necessity, such as was this of the disciples in the text. The Jews in their superstition would not fight on the Sabbath, and therefore lost their chief city to the Romans, under the command of Pompey, who took the advantage of the day to do his utmost then against them. {a} In later times they grew more rigid in this point: for on the Sabbath they would not spit, ease nature, get out of an outhouse, if by mishap they had fallen into it, as that Jew of Tewkesbury. This ever was and is the guise of hypocrites, to strain at gnats and swallow camels. Witness our modern Pharisees, the monks and Jesuits, who stumble at straws and leap over mountains. Their schoolmen determined that it was a less crime to kill a thousand men than for a poor man to mend his shoe on the Sabbath day. {b}
Read full note →
{a} Romani quoties dies huiusmodi rediissent fortissime percutiebant.
{b} Levius esse crimen mille homines iugulare, quam semel die Dominico pauperi calceum consuere. Pareus in loc.
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.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 5, 6, 7 So saith Mark, Mar 2:24, only he puts it…
So saith Mark, Mar 2:24, only he puts it into the form of a question. Luke adds nothing, Luk 6:2, but saith, certain of the Pharisees. They granted the thing lawful to be done another day, but not on the sabbath day. How blind is superstition, that they could think that it was contrary to the will of God, that his people should fit themselves for the service of the sabbath by a moderate refreshment! Some of the Pharisees ordinarily attended Christ’s motions, not to be instructed by him, but (as is afterward said) that they might have something whereof to accuse him. What a little thing do they carp at! Wherein was the sin? The plucking of a few ears of corn, and rubbing them, could hardly be called servile labour, especially not in the sense of the commandment, which restrained not necessary labour, but such labour as took them off from the duties of the sabbath; but their tradition had made this unlawful, as it was a little reaping and a kind of threshing. Hypocrites and formalists are always most zealous for little things in the law, or for their own additaments to it.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 7 Observe here, 1. The persons finding fault with this…
Observe here, 1. The persons finding fault with this action of the disciples, the Pharisees; many of whom accompanied our Saviour, not out of any good intentions, but only with a design to cavil at, and quarrel with, everything that either Christ or is disciples said or did.
Observe, 2. The action which they found fault with: The disciples plucking off the ears of corn on the sabbath-day.
Read full note →
Where note, It is not theft which the disciples are accused of by the Pharisees! for to take, in our necessity, so much of our neighbour’s goods, as we may reasonably suppose that if he were present, and knew our circumstances, he would give us, is no theft: but it was a servile labour on the sabbath, in gathering the corn, that the Pharisees scrupled; plucking the ears was looked upon as a sort of reaping.
Learn thence, How zealous hypocrites are for the lesser things of the law, whilst they neglect the weightier; and how superstitiously addicted to the outward ceremonies, placing all holiness in the observation of them.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv2–7 But when the Pharisees saw it,.... Who went along…
But when the Pharisees saw it,.... Who went along with him, or followed him, being employed to make observation on his words and actions,
they said unto him; Luke says, "unto them", the disciples: it seems, they took notice of this action both to Christ and his disciples, and first spoke of it to the one, and then to the other, or to both together:
Read full note →
behold thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day! they mention it with astonishment, and indignation. What they refer to, is not their walking on the sabbath day: this they might do, according to their canons, provided they did not exceed two thousand cubits, which were a sabbath day's journey (f) nor was it their passing through the corn fields; though, according to them (g),
"it was not lawful for a man to visit his gardens, "or his fields", on the sabbath day, to see what they want, or how the fruits grow; for such walking is to do his own pleasure.''
But this they knew was not the case of Christ, and his disciples, who were not proprietors of these fields: nor was it merely their plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing and eating them, which were not their own, but another man's; for this, according to the law, in Deu 23:25 was lawful to be done: but what offended the Pharisees was, that it was done on a sabbath day, it being, as they interpret it, a servile work, and all one as reaping; though, in the law just mentioned, it is manifestly distinguished from it. Their rule is (h).
"he that reaps (on the sabbath day) ever so little, is guilty (of stoning), , and "plucking of ears of corn is a derivative of reaping";''
and is all one as its primitive, and punishable with the same kind of death, if done presumptuously: so Philo the Jew observes (i), that the rest of the sabbath not only reached to men, bond and free, and to beasts, but even to trees, and plants; and that ' , "it was not lawful to cut a plant, or branch, or so much as a leaf", on a sabbath day: and it may be what might make this offence of the disciples the more heinous was, that they plucked these ears, and ate them, and so broke their fast before morning prayer; for a man might not eat any thing on a sabbath day until morning prayers were ended in the synagogue, nor indeed on any other day; for they used not to eat bread till after they had offered the daily sacrifice, which was about the third hour of the day, or nine o'clock in the morning; nor did they eat till the fourth hour, or ten o'clock (k).
(f) Ib. c. 27. sect. 1. (g) R. Moses Kotzensis Mitzvot Tora prec. neg. 65. (h) Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 8. sect. 3. & 7. 1. (i) De Vita Mosis, 1. 2. p. 657. (k) Vid. Targum in Eccl. x. 17. Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 6. sect. 4.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 5, 7 Have ye not read what David did - And…
Have ye not read what David did - And necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv2–7 Verse 2. Thy disciples do that which is not…
Verse 2. Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do] The Jews were so superstitious, concerning the observance of the Sabbath, that in their wars with Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Romans, they thought it a crime even to attempt to defend themselves on the Sabbath: when their enemies observed this, they deterred their operations to that day. It was through this, that Pompey was enabled to take Jerusalem. Dion. Cass. lib. xxxvi.
Those who know not the spirit and design of the divine law are often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety. An intolerant and censorious spirit in religion is one of the greatest curses a man can well fall under.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv2, 5, 7 Mat 12:2-4. The Pharisees said, Thy disciples do what…
Mat 12:2-4. The Pharisees said, Thy disciples do what is not lawful — The law of Moses so expressly allowed the plucking ears of corn as one passed through a field, that, malignant as they were, they pretended not to find fault with the action itself, (see Deu 23:25,) but they were perverse enough to think this to be a kind of reaping and dressing the grain, which was indeed forbidden on the sabbath. But he said — Have ye not read what, in a case of like necessity, David did, and his followers? and his necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. How he entered into the house of God — Into the tabernacle: the temple not being yet built. The meaning cannot be, that David himself went into the very tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither: but it was into the house or chamber of the high-priest that he entered, situated beside the tabernacle, and called the house of God on that account. See note on 1Sa 21:3-6. Thus the apartment in which the High-priest Eli and his servant Samuel slept, is called the house of the Lord, 1Sa 3:15. And did eat the show-bread — Gr. τους αρτους της προθεσεως, the bread of exhibition, or, the bread set forth. The Hebrew expression,
לחם פנים, is literally, the bread of the face, or, of the presence, so called, because it stood continually before the face, (so to speak,) of Jehovah; that is, before the ark, where God was peculiarly present. It consisted of twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, and was set every sabbath day, by the priest who served that week, on the golden table that was in the holy place of the tabernacle or temple. When the new loaves were brought, the stale ones were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. See notes on Exo 25:30; Lev 24:6-9.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 6 Upon the Sabbath day - The Pharisees, doubtless desirous…
Upon the Sabbath day - The Pharisees, doubtless desirous of finding fault with Christ, said that in plucking the grain on the “Sabbath day” they had violated the commandment. Moses had commanded the Hebrews to abstain from all servile work on the Sabbath, Exo 20:10; Exo 35:2-3; Num 15:32-36. On any other day this would have been clearly lawful, for it was permitted, Deu 23:25.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv2–7 That which is not lawful to do on the…
That which is not lawful to do on the sabbath-days. The Pharisees blame not the disciples for plucking the ears of corn, as they passed by, (this being allowed, Deuteronomy xxiii. 25.) but for doing it on a sabbath-day, as if it had been a breach of the sabbath. (Witham) --- Behold, &c. The Pharisees here mildly rebuke our Lord; but afterwards, when he restored the withered hand, they rose up against him with such rage, that they formed upon the spot designs of killing him, as in ver. 14. When there is nothing great or sublime, they are more quiet, but when with his word only he restores health to the infirm, like furious beasts, they grow enraged. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. xl.)
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).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–7 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto…
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day--The act itself was expressly permitted (Deu 23:25). But as being "servile work," which was prohibited on the sabbath day, it was regarded as sinful.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv2–7 2. Not lawful… upon the sabbath day — The…
2. Not lawful… upon the sabbath day — The crime was not the walking, for they may not have walked more than a Sabbath day’s journey; but the plucking and the rubbing. Now this was done to satisfy actual hunger, and doubtless was their only obtainable food. It was truly, therefore, hardly more than to put one’s hands to the food upon a table. It may therefore be considered a striking instance in which the Jews had come to pervert the divine law in an over particularity about the letter.
2. The decalogue, which is of perpetual validity, commands the observance of one day in seven as Sabbath or rest, (for rest is the meaning of the word Sabbath,) but lays down no unchangeable law as to the particular day.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 7 2. that which is not lawful to do upon…
2. that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day] This prohibition is a Pharisaic rule not found in the Mosaic Law. It was a principle with the Pharisees to extend the provisions of the Law and make minute regulations over and beyond what Moses commanded, in order to avoid the possibility of transgression. To pluck ears of corn was in a sense, the Pharisees said, to reap, and to reap on the Sabbath day was forbidden and punishable by death. These regulations did in fact make void the Law; e. g. the result of this particular prohibition was to contravene the intention or motive of the Sabbath. If sabbatical observances prevented men satisfying hunger, the Sabbath was no longer a blessing but an injury to man.
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.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv2–7 (2) When the Pharisees saw it.—In the position in…
(2) When the Pharisees saw it.—In the position in which the narrative stands in the other two Gospels, the Pharisees would appear as belonging to the company that had come down from Jerusalem to watch and accuse the new Teacher (Luk_5:17). He claimed the power to forgive sins, He ate and drank with publicans and sinners. Now they found that He was teaching men to dishonour the Sabbath, as He had already taught them in Jerusalem (Joh_5:10; Joh_5:16).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv2–7 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto…
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him. The Revised Version (but the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him) retains the simple order of the Greek, which more vividly represents the Pharisees as a party opposed to him. Behold. They suggest that he had not noticed it. Were the disciples behind him? (cf. Mat_8:23) Thy disciples. Notice that all the accusations brought against the disciples in this Gospel concern food: Mat_9:14, as regards abstaining from it upon fixed days; Mat_15:2, as regards eating it without taking extreme precautions against ceremonial pollution; in the present passage, as regards avoiding any profanation of the sabbath for its sake. Do. At this moment. That which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day (ver. 1, note).
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Ver. 2. Rigidity in sabbath rules.
Read full note →
That which the disciples did was not regarded as a wrong thing in their day. Thomson tells us that, when travelling in harvest-time, his muleteers plucked off the ears of corn, rubbed them in their hands, and ate the grains, just as the apostles did. And this was quite allowable; it was never thought of as stealing. The Pharisees did not object to the thing that was done, but to the infringement of their stiff rule, that this particular act should not be done on the sabbath, because it amounted to doing work on the sabbath day. Divine laws can gain adjustments and adaptations to fit to various conditions and circumstances; there is elasticity in their applications. Man-made laws are stiff and rigid; they scarcely permit exceptions; and require that men shall always adjust to them, and never expect law to adjust to meet their need. The Divine sabbath law is large, comprehensive, spiritual, and therefore searching. But it is elastic, and adjusts to man"s varying conditions; it does not expect men to force themselves to fit to it. Human sabbath rules were, in our Lord"s time, and are still, most vexations things yokes that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear. They required a woman to have no bow on her dress, unless it was sewn on, and so a part of the dress; for otherwise she would be carrying a bow. And these strange rules to-day permit a woman to use a pin on the Sunday, but refuse to allow her to use a needle. Sabbath never can be really kept on man-made rules. "In their bigoted reverence for the sabbath some of the Jews asserted that the day was first of all kept in heaven, and that the Jewish nation had been chosen for no other end than to preserve it holy upon earth." The extent to which they carried their scruples excites one"s ridicule and contempt.
I THE SABBATH AS A PRINCIPLE. It is well, in dealing with the sabbath, always to show first that it is a Divine arrangement for humanity, as such, and is not, in the first place, distinctively religious. For healthy life God provided the rest of night; for healthy work God provided the rest of the sabbath. But there is this important difference between them. The rest of night is compulsory; the seventh-day rest is voluntary. This at once brings in the element of principle and of religion. If a man is in the fear and love of God, as he should be, he will readily and cheerfully do what God suggests as well as what God commands.
II THE SABBATH AS A RULE. Voluntary things may not be done; then if God will not make certain things compulsory, men think they can do God service by fixing rules for their fellows, and so make them keep sabbath. And even good men cannot see that thus they take all the glory of the sabbath away. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv6–7 That in this place Is One greater than the…
Mat_12:6
That in this place Is One greater than the temple.
Read full note →
Christ greater than the Church
I. Look at the things essential in the structure of the church, and show what Christ is in relation to these. The things essential in the structure of the church are the plan, the foundation, and the materials.
1. Let us understand what Christ is in relation to the plan. The plan of the Christian Church is that of a temple. Everything we see suggests that God seeks manifestation. The temple was complete in Christ; the union of the Divine and human, the indwelling of the Divine Spirit, the manifestation of the Divine perfection, the operation of the Divine mercy-all were in Him. The life-plan of the Saviour developed by Christian life and fellowship.
2. The foundation. The foundation means the reason which both churches and souls give of the hope that is in them. The gospel of Christ is the foundation.
3. The materials of which it is composed. In respect of the house of God this is a great mystery; composed of divers elements. Christ fits every individual member into his appropriate place.
II. The purposes of the church, what christ is in relation to these.
1. Up-building, or culture.
2. Outbuilding, or conquest.
3. Worship, or adoration. Christ everything to the church in the process of culture. He liberates, elevates, and purifies. As to conquest the Church is Christs messenger. As to worship it is a holy priesthood. (A. McLeod, D. D.)
Christ greater than the temple.
The Church is nothing without its head. Whatever it is, He has created it. Whatever it does, He is its life! It is righteous, but it is with His righteousness. It is royal, its royalty comes from Him. It is a priesthood, He conferred the priesthood. Its love, its power, its faith, its hope, everything it is, everything it expects to do, find their explanation and root in its relation to Him. (A. McLeod, D. D.)
One greater than the temple
I. Our Lord Jesus Christ is greater than the temple.
1. He is so manifestly because He is God. He who dwells in the house is greater than the house in which He dwells, so that as God Jesus is greater than the temple. The Divine must be greater than any human workmanship; the self-existent must excel the noblest created thing. The temple was many years in building, and came to an end. Christ is from everlasting to everlasting. Hence our Lords authority was greater than that of the temple.
2. He is greater than the temple, for He is a more glorious enshrinement of Deity. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The manifestation of the Godhead in Christ is approachable.
3. Our Lord is a fuller manifestation of the truth than the temple was. The temple was full of instruction; but all in type. Christ says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.
4. Because He is a more abiding evidence of Divine favour.
5. Because He is a more sure place of consolation.
6. Because He is a more glorious centre of worship.
II. Jesus ought to be regarded as greater than the temple,
1. We ought to think of Him with greater joy than even the Jews did of the greater and beautiful house.
2. We ought to consider Him with greater wonder than that with which men surveyed the temple.
3. He ought to be visited with greater frequency.
4. He ought to be reverenced with greater solemnity.
5. He ought to be honoured with higher service.
6. He ought to be sought with more vehement desire.
III. Practical reflections.
1. How carefully should the laws of Jesus Christ be observed.
2. How much more ought we to value Christ than any outward ordinance.
3. How much more important that you should go to Christ than that you should go to any place which you suppose to be the house of God. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
I. The superiority of christ to the temple of Jerusalem. His superiority in those respects which distinguish that temple above all others.
1. It was built under the immediate and special direction of God.
2. It was furnished with everything that was requisite to the purpose of its erection as it regards both God and man.
3. It was adorned with a visible symbol of the Divine presence.
4. It was frequented by all the tribes of Israel as the place set apart for their religious worship.
II. Inferences.
1. His lordship over the conscience. Every human authority must yield to His.
2. His power to bestow all spiritual blessing-peace, strength, glory.
(1) How signal are our privileges!
(2) How solemn is our responsibility! (Various.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv2–7 2. But the Pharisees saw it. See note on…
2. But the Pharisees saw it. See note on Matt. 3:7. Some of the sect were in attendance on the watch for a ground of accusation. Not lawful on the sabbath. They did not object to taking the ears of corn, but to gathering, rubbing out the grains of wheat in the hand, and eating them on the sabbath. To understand their position, it must be noticed that after the Law had said that the Jews were “to do no manner of work” on the Sabbath, the “Tradition of the Elders” had laid down thirty-nine principal prohibitions, which were ascribed to the authority of the Great Synagogue, and which were called abhoth, “fathers,” or chief rules. From these were deduced a vast multitude of toldoth, “descendants,” or derivative rules. Now, “reaping” and “threshing” on the Sabbath day were forbidden by abhoth; and by the toldoth it was asserted that plucking corn-ears was a kind of reaping, and rubbing them a kind of threshing. The vitality of these artificial notions among the Jews is extraordinary. Abarbanel relates that when, in 1492, the Jews were expelled from Spain, and were forbidden to enter the city of Fez lest they should cause a famine, they lived on grass; yet even in this state “religiously avoided the violation of their Sabbath by plucking the grass with their hands.” To avoid this they took the much more laborious method of groveling on their knees, and cropping it with their teeth. We give one more example of their Sabbath requirements. “If on the Sabbath a Jew put out a lamp from fear of the Gentiles, or robbers, or on account of an evil spirit, he was guiltless; if to save oil, he was guilty.”—Milman's Jews, Vol. 2, p. 480.
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.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv3–4 what David did
what David did
Jesus’ action Mat 12:1-7 is highly significant. "What David did" refers to the time of his rejection and persecution by Saul. 1Sa 21:6. Jesus here is not so much the rejected Saviour as the rejected King; hence the reference to David.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv2, 6 The objection of the Pharisees:
The objection of the Pharisees:
v. 2. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.
Read full note →
The malicious faultfinders deliberately made a mountain out of a mole-hill and construed the action with their usual intolerance. The plucking to them became reaping, and the rubbing with the hands to remove the hulls in their eyes became threshing. There was no wrong done even from the standpoint of the strictest interpretation of the Jewish Law. But the Pharisees so construed it and took offense, incidentally accusing Christ as an accomplice for permitting the sacrilege. Christ’s answer:
v. 3. But He said unto them, Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him,
v. 4. how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
v. 5. Or have ye not read in the Law how on the Sabbath days the priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?
Jesus had a most disconcerting way of quoting Scripture to His enemies, which usually resulted in their chagrin and shameful rout. He has two examples for them: David, in fleeing before the wrath of Saul, came to the sanctuary of the Lord at Nob, 1Sa 21:1-6, where Ahimelech, the priest, gave him the show-bread, the bread of the countenance of God, from the table in the Holy Place. These consecrated bread-cakes were to be eaten by the priests only, Lev 24:8-9, and yet David, the great model of Jewish piety, ate of this hallowed bread with his men. And again: The priests, in the regular discharge of their duties, in sacrificing the burnt offerings in the morning and evening services of the Sabbath day, were technically transgressing the Sabbath law, with its absolute prohibition of work, thus, if one would argue from the standpoint of the Pharisees, actually profaning the Sabbath.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv3, 5, 7 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
Jesus responds to the Pharisees' criticism.
Read full note →
to them
"to the Pharisees"
Have you never read ... with him?
Jesus uses a question to respond to the criticism of the Pharisees. Jesus is challenging them to think about the meaning of the scriptures they have read. AT: "I know you have read about ... with him" (See: Rhetorical Question)
the house of God
During the time of David there was no temple yet. AT: "the tabernacle" or "the place for worshiping God"
bread of the presence
This is sacred bread that priests placed before God in the tabernacle. AT: "bread that the priest placed before God" or "the sacred bread" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
those who were with him
"the men who were with David"
but lawful only for the priests
"but, according to the law, only the priest could eat it"
translationWords
David
house of God
lawful
lawful
priest
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv3, 5, 7 12:3-7 The Pharisees did not understand that the Sabbath…
12:3-7 The Pharisees did not understand that the Sabbath was designed to benefit people. Their view of the Sabbath placed onerous burdens on people.
12:3-4 Ritual laws were at times rightly suspended for particular people or circumstances (1 Sam 21:1-6).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.