SEV Biblia, Chapter 12:4
cmo entr en la Casa de Dios, y comi los panes de la proposicin, que no le era lícito comer, ni a los que estaban con l, sino slo a los sacerdotes?
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 4. How he entered into the house of God , etc.] 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 Abimelechs house: and did eat the shewbread ; for that this is meant by the hallowed bread, in ( 1 Samuel 21:6) is certain; though R. Joseph Kimchi thinks it was the bread of the thank offering; to which R. Levi ben Getsom seems to incline: but the general sense of the Jewish doctors 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 Leviticus 24:5,9) and so the Jews say that this bread yrzl rwsa , is forbidden to strangers f717 ; 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 f718 . No hint is here given, nor in the history, in ( 1 Samuel 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 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 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 Lords 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, Ver. 5. Or have ye not read in the law , etc.] ( Numbers 28:9) by which law the priests were obliged, every sabbath day, to offer up two lambs for a burnt offering; to which were annexed many servile works, as killing the sacrifice, flaying it, cutting it in pieces, and laying it on the altar, cutting of wood, and putting that in order, and kindling the fire: from all which, it might be observed, how that on the sabbath days, the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless . There were many things, which, according to the Jewish canons, the priests might do on the sabbath day; particularly they might slay the sacrifice: it was a rule with them, tb ta hjwj htjd , that slaying drives away the sabbath f721 . They might also knead, make, and bake the showbread on the sabbath day: their general rule was, as R. Akiba says, that what was possible to be done on the evening of the sabbath, did not drive away the sabbath; but what was not possible to be done on the sabbath eve, did drive away the sabbath f722 : so they might kill the passover, sprinkle its blood, wipe its inwards, and burn the fat on the sabbath day f723 , with many other things. What exculpated these men was, that what they did was done in the temple, and for the service of it, upon which an emphasis is put; and agrees with their canons, which say, that there is no prohibition in the sanctuary; awh rth dqmb twb rwsya , that which is forbidden to be done on the sabbath, is lawful to be done in the sanctuary f724 : and whereas, it might be objected to the disciples of Christ, that they were not priests; and what they did was not in the temple, but in the fields; to this it is replied, in the following words:
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 1-8 - Being in the corn-fields, the disciples began to pluck the ears of corn: the law of God allowed it, De 23:25. This was slender provisio for Christ and his disciples; but they were content with it. The Pharisees did not quarrel with them for taking another man's corn, but for doing it on the sabbath day. Christ came to free his followers, no only from the corruptions of the Pharisees, but from their unscriptura rules, and justified what they did. The greatest shall not have their lusts indulged, but the meanest shall have their wants considered Those labours are lawful on the sabbath day which are necessary, an sabbath rest is to froward, not to hinder sabbath worship. Needfu provision for health and food is to be made; but when servants are kep at home, and families become a scene of hurry and confusion on the Lord's day, to furnish a feast for visitors, or for indulgence, the case is very different. Such things as these, and many others commo among professors, are to be blamed. The resting on the sabbath wa ordained for man's good, De 5:14. No law must be understood so as to contradict its own end. And as Christ is the Lord of the sabbath, it is fit the day and the work of it should be dedicated to him.
Greek Textus Receptus
πως 4459 ADV εισηλθεν 1525 5627 V-2AAI-3S εις 1519 PREP τον 3588 T-ASM οικον 3624 N-ASM του 3588 T-GSM θεου 2316 N-GSM και 2532 CONJ τους 3588 T-APM αρτους 740 N-APM της 3588 T-GSF προθεσεως 4286 N-GSF εφαγεν 5315 5627 V-2AAI-3S ους 3739 R-APM ουκ 3756 PRT-N εξον 1832 5901 V-PQP-NSN ην 2258 5713 V-IXI-3S αυτω 846 P-DSM φαγειν 5315 5629 V-2AAN ουδε 3761 ADV τοις 3588 T-DPM μετ 3326 PREP αυτου 846 P-GSM ει 1487 COND μη 3361 PRT-N τοις 3588 T-DPM ιερευσιν 2409 N-DPM μονοις 3441 A-DPM
