Matthew 12:4Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Mark, in noting that this happened under the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), does not contradict the event but merely indicates he had dual titles, emphasizing that he provided David with the showbread. This underscores the justification David possessed, for the priest not only permitted it but acted accordingly. Do not assert that David was a prophet. This did not entitle him to partake of the bread, as only priests held that privilege; thus it is stated, Only by a single priest. While David was indeed a revered prophet, he was not a priest. If he was a prophet, those accompanying him were not priests. Nevertheless, the bishop distributed bread to his companions as well. What is the implication here? Are the apostles to be equated with David? However, why do you bring up status when the issue at hand concerns a transgression of the law, even if necessitated by nature? This is precisely the point the Lord used to defend His disciples against the Pharisees' criticisms, by presenting a prophet of greater stature who had committed a similar act. But you may ask, how does this pertain to our discussion? For David did not contravene the Sabbath laws. You raise a crucial point that illustrates Christ's wisdom: by moving beyond the topic of the Sabbath, He highlights a matter of greater significance. Indeed, violating the Sabbath and partaking from that sacred meal, which no one was authorized to consume, hold different weights. The Sabbath is often transgressed and is consistently broken during circumcision and many other instances; similarly, the event at Jericho (Num. 6:4) illustrates this. Yet, the consumption of the sacred meal was limited to the time of David. Thus, Christ triumphs by providing the most significant examples. Why was David never accused, despite even graver reasons for accusation, such as the maltreatment of the priests? Yet, Christ chooses not to mention this, focusing solely on the primary issue.

He prioritized alleviating the people's hunger over ritual sacrifice, for the salvation of humanity serves as a pleasing act to God. Thus, the Lord poses a question, essentially stating, ‘If David is righteous, and if Ahimelech faces no condemnation from you, yet both have violated the law based on a justification that holds only provisional weight due to the famine, why do you fail to acknowledge the same famine as valid justification for the apostles, yet recognize it as such for others? Even though a significant distinction exists here, for the former acted with their hands, while the latter consumed the loaves designated for the Levites. Furthermore, the sabbath was interwoven with the new moon's observance during which David was fleeing from the king's court and the festive gathering, as noted in 1 Samuel 20. It is important to highlight that neither David nor his companions partook of the loaves until they confirmed their ritual purity from any contact with women.

Jesus referenced this incident to the Pharisees in defense of His disciples, demonstrating that they were justified in their actions due to the pressing need they faced, similar to the situation of David, who had also transgressed the law regarding the showbread. Not only was David not rebuked by the priest present, but he was, in fact, given the loaves.

However, the consumption of the sacred bread, which is exclusively reserved for the priests, occurred under David’s leadership. Despite not being a priest, the high priest himself provided David with the holy loaves to sustain him during his difficult days of fleeing from Saul. If David, that esteemed king and prophet whom you particularly revere, brazenly transgressed the written law without facing condemnation due to his dire circumstances, how can my disciples be reproached for their innocent act of necessity driven by hunger?

In defense of His disciples’ actions and His own healing of the man, the Lord pointed to the Pharisees, who scrutinized His every move, citing instances where righteous individuals had broken certain laws under pressing circumstances. For instance, David, while fleeing from Saul, requested the sacred showbread from Abiathar and consumed it with his followers (1 Sam. 21:1). He also highlighted their own breaches of Sabbath observance, as they permitted the rescue of a stray animal that had fallen into a pit. Moreover, even priests in the temple were not able to strictly observe the Sabbath commandment because of their sacrificial duties, and this was even more applicable on regular days.

The Lord emphasized that He represented something greater than the temple itself. Thus, by adhering to this higher principle, the disciples did not transgress the sacredness of the temple, which is but a transitory dwelling of the Almighty and His laws. Meanwhile, He reminded them never to overlook what the Lord stated through the prophet: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”—implying that compassion towards the man with the withered hand surpasses mere adherence to rest. We must remember that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Sabbath, like any other day, provides an opportunity to perform good deeds rather than commit evil; failing to act for the good of our neighbor also counts as neglect. Finally, the Lord reiterated what He had declared in Jerusalem: the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.

24:9).

In the First Book of Kings, chapter 21, it recounts that David, fleeing from Saul, approached Nob, where the priest Ahimelech was, and sought bread to relieve the hunger afflicting both himself and his companions. With no ordinary bread available, the priest provided David the showbread. The Gospel writer Mark refers to Abiathar as the high priest during this encounter, while Kings mentions Ahimelech. This discrepancy can be attributed to Abiathar being the son and successor of Ahimelech, and a close companion to David. During his father’s lifetime, Abiathar assisted him in priestly duties, so that after Ahimelech's passing, the name of Abiathar readily came to mind in connection with David, as he served as high priest in that era. Nonetheless, it is a historical fact that David entered the house of God under Abiathar and consumed the showbread (Mark 2:26).

If David’s desperate hunger led the high priest to set aside the regulations concerning the showbread, indicating that aiding a neighbor in distress takes precedence over rigid adherence to the law—showing that mercy is greater than sacrifice—then it stands to reason that Jesus’ disciples could similarly justify plucking grains to appease their hunger, thereby setting aside the Pharisaic interpretation of the Sabbath law.

How he entered the house of God on the Sabbath and consumed the showbread, which only the priests were permitted to eat?" If David, their esteemed king and revered figure, could so openly breach the letter of the law without reproach due to necessity, then why should the disciples be criticized for a harmless act to quell their hunger?

When David faced hunger, at the suggestion of the high priest, he and his companions ate of these loaves, which appeared to contravene the law. Nevertheless, David was neither condemned nor criticized for this action, indicating that in times of necessity, the law may be set aside, a principle acknowledged by all legal systems. This parallel can be drawn to the Lord’s disciples, who, driven by hunger, picked grain on the Sabbath. Therefore, they were not to be judged for their actions on that holy day. One might inquire how this pertains to our discussion; did David violate the Sabbath? The Lord emphasizes a matter of greater significance than the Sabbath. To disobey the Sabbath in order to engage in this sacred meal, which is restricted to certain individuals, holds different weight. In this way, Christ demonstrates the precedence of more critical principles. And do not assert that David was a prophet, asserting that such a status absolves his actions regarding the law from justifying the disciples’ actions on the Sabbath. David’s prophetic role did not grant him the authority to consume the sacred loaves, as they were exclusively designated for the priests. Despite David’s esteemed position as a prophet, he was not a priest, nor were his companions.

In the holy space of the Tabernacle, according to the Law of Moses, twelve unleavened loaves, known as the bread of presence, were placed upon a dedicated table before the Lord, and each Sabbath, these loaves were replaced with fresh ones. When David, pursued by Saul and in dire need, arrived at Nob where the Tabernacle was located, he received the permission of Ahimelech the high priest to take these sacred loaves to alleviate his hunger. Although David’s action could be seen as a breach of the customary norms, he was not condemned for this necessity-driven choice. As St. John Chrysostom remarks, ‘The Lord' defended His disciples from the accusations of the Pharisees by citing a prophet greater than they, who had acted similarly. The mention of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech by the Evangelist Mark can be understood as reflecting the legal inheritance of the priestly title, allowing the son to bear the name of the high priest even during his father’s lifetime.