And Jesus answering said to them, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did when he hungered, he and those who were with him,
The Pharisees have just caught the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus does not argue about their rules. He points them back to an old story about a hungry king. Why answer a Sabbath charge with David? And what does that comparison say about the men making the accusation?
Jesus could have replied that no written law forbade what the disciples did. Instead He answered from Scripture, and one writer calls that answer a weapon we are meant to use too.
The human way of answering the objections of the Pharisees would have been to tell them that there was no law forbidding the deed done by the disciples... However, this is not the way divine wisdom chooses to silence their accusations... He wields once more the Sword of the Spirit and answers their unscriptural objections by His scriptural assertions. May we learn from it, and at all times, whether it is the Devil or his offspring who tempt us, use the Word in our defence.
Picking grain by hand was normal for a hungry traveller. What was not normal was who had to do it.
This was always allowed, and is still, in Eastern countries around the Holy Land — no doubt a remaining trace of the old traditional habit of the Jews. It is allowed as an act of charity to the hungry. What a condition for the followers of the Lord Jesus to be in! What a proof of His shame and of their need!
David was anointed king, but he was not yet on the throne. His hungry companions shared that rejection with him. One writer sees the Lord standing in exactly the same place.
Luke points to the moral parallel in the history of the great king David. David was anointed, but had not yet come to the throne — which was exactly the Lord's own position now. His need grew so extreme that the holy bread became common bread for his sake. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual when the anointed king and his followers lacked the barest necessities of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation.
Saul held the throne while God's chosen king ran for his life, and the bread set apart for the priests — the showbread — went to him instead. One writer sees the Pharisees treating their Messiah as Saul treated David.
The glory of God had left the temple. The Pharisees were despising and rejecting their Messiah, just as Saul's cruel and unrighteous rage once hunted David into exile. In David's day the letter of the ancient rules had to give way to the needs of the man who was the anointed king after God's own heart... "Granted, the showbread was only for the priests. But for them to keep their consecrated bread and let the anointed king starve would be a strange way to honour God and the king."
God had set that bread apart. One writer names what made it common again, and what that says about the men accusing Jesus.
David's hunger, and the hunger of those with him, is a picture of the greater One than David. He and His disciples passed through the grainfield hungry, forced to pluck ears of corn to eat. The sad scene on that Sabbath day proved that the people did not care for the little group led by the King. David was rejected and on the run. Then the holy things connected with the ceremonies God gave Israel stopped being holy. The sin was David's rejection... How ridiculous for these hypocrites to speak of Sabbath-keeping when they were rejecting the Lord of the Sabbath!
Jesus was not only defending His disciples. If the case held for David, it holds even more for the greater One standing in front of them.
Was this a sin? It was Saul's and the people's sin that there was no bread for David. It was their sin that the true anointed one was an outcast... If it had no sanctity in the presence of a rejected David, how much less in the presence of a rejected Christ? This was the argument; for certainly a greater than the priests and a greater than David was there. So this was a greater sin than in the ordinary days of Israel, or even in the special days of David. So the Lord turned the conviction of sin back on the heads of those who would have condemned the disciples.
- Rejection — Jesus points to David as God's anointed king, hunted by Saul. That rejection, not hunger alone, is the key to His whole reply.
- Hunger — the disciples scraped raw grain to eat. That proved their Master's shame and their need. The people did not care for the King among them.
- Common — when people refuse God's anointed, God will not hold to ritual. The consecrated bread lost its holiness rather than let the king starve.
- Greater — the rejection of David made the showbread common. The rejection of Christ makes the accusers' sin heavier still.
- Scripture — Jesus answered an unscriptural objection with the written Word. His followers are meant to do the same.
how he entered into the house of God and took the shewbread and ate, and gave to those also who were with him, which it is not lawful that [any] eat, unless the priests alone?
Jesus is charged with letting His disciples break the Sabbath. He answers with an old story: David ate bread that only priests were allowed to eat. Why was that act never condemned? And what does the answer say about the One telling the story?
The loaves David took were not ordinary food. They stood in the sanctuary as a picture of the nation before God, and only priests could eat them.
The Table held twelve cakes, or loaves. These stood for the twelve tribes of Israel. It is true that only the priests could eat the loaves, and only in the Holy Place. But they ate as representatives of all Israel. The priests were a tenth of all the children of Israel, and so stood as representatives of the whole.
All the weight falls on David's position when he took the bread. He was already anointed king, but not yet on the throne — and that was exactly where Jesus stood.
Luke points to the moral parallel in the story of the great king David. After his anointing, and before he came to the throne — which was just the Lord's position now — David was brought so low that the holy bread was made common for his sake. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual while the anointed king and his followers lacked the barest necessities of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation. How could God sanction holy bread in such a condition?
If hunger alone suspended the law, anyone could claim the exemption. One writer presses that objection hard.
This was not a doubtful point. It was not a question of human additions to the law, or of how the law was read. It went straight against the written law of Moses. How, then, could the Lord justify it? Was it on the ground of hunger alone? And was every hungry man entitled with David here to set the law aside?
The answer lies in how far the whole system had already collapsed. Four things made David's case different, and the last one was decisive.
There are matters that make a difference. First, the priesthood had badly failed in Israel. Second, the tabernacle service was in the wrong place, not the place God had chosen. Third, the ark was not there. And fourth, the true king was in exile and hungry because of persecution. That last point alone was reason enough for the priest Ahimelech to give the bread to David. Real need matters more than mere formal exactness.
The same writer sets a limit, so no one turns this into an excuse. The showbread rule was ritual; moral truth is another thing.
This was of course a ritual law, and in this exceptional case human need set it aside. Clearly no one may openly brush aside the moral principles of truth and righteousness to meet his passing needs. But ritual laws were a different matter... How much more, then, must the mere traditions of the Pharisees be set aside!
When God's anointed was cast out, the nation's sacred order lost its hold. What David did in his rejection points straight to Christ in His.
A rejected David had leapt over the barrier of the law when his need required it. For when God's Anointed was rejected and cast out, everything became in a way common. The Son of man was Lord of the sabbath — the Son of David, rejected like the son of Jesse, the chosen and anointed king. God set up this ordinance, and God stood above the ordinances He had set up. He was present in grace, and man's obligation gave way to the sovereignty of God.
The bread lost its guarded holiness for Israel. For those who believe, it came to mean something else.
At that time the holiness of the showbread was cancelled, for God's king had been cast out... So for Israel the holiness of the showbread was gone, and the bread had become as common as any other bread. But to the church it has become the symbol of a blessed truth. To eat together is the sign of fellowship, and we, made priests to God, have fellowship with one another as we eat of the bread from heaven.
- Bread — Twelve loaves stood for the twelve tribes. Only priests could eat them, and only in the Holy Place. David took what no ordinary Israelite could touch.
- Rejection — David's case matched Christ's own: anointed, not yet reigning, driven out.
- Need — Hunger alone settles nothing. The priesthood had failed, the ark was gone, and the true king was in exile. Real need outweighed formal exactness.
- Limit — A ceremonial rule gave way; moral righteousness never does. And if a God-given ritual could yield, Pharisee tradition had no standing at all.
- Table — Once Israel refused its king, the holy bread became common. For believers, made priests, it is shared food and fellowship.