English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
In 1 Samuel 21, David is fleeing from Saul. He arrives in Nob, where the tabernacle is located, and encounters Ahimelech the priest. David requests food, but Ahimelech only has the showbread, which is consecrated for use in the tabernacle. Despite the law reserving the showbread exclusively for the sons of Aaron “And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.”, (Leviticus 24:9), “the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away” “So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.”, (1 Samuel 21:6).
The matter of David consuming the showbread is referenced in Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees when they accuse Him of violating the Sabbath. His disciples had picked some grain and eaten it while walking through a field (Matthew 12:1-8;Mark 2:23-28;Luke 6:1-5). The Pharisees protested: “Look!” they said to Jesus. “Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath” “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.”, (Matthew 12:2).
In response, Jesus refers to 1
Samuel 21: “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests” (Matthew 12:3-4). Jesus seems to use what David did regarding the showbread as a justification for what His disciples were doing. If that is the case, then David must have been in the right. There are several views on whether or why it was permissible for David to eat the showbread.
Some have theorized that, since this was the old bread for the priests to eat, not fresh bread currently in use, the priests could give it to someone else. However, there is nothing in the law regarding the showbread that indicates that the priests were allowed to give it away—they were supposed to eat it (Leviticus 24:8-9).
Later in the narrative of 1 Samuel, Saul accuses the priest of “inquiring of God” for David «And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword, and hast enquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as at this day? », (1 Samuel 22:13). This fact leads some to suggest that the priest asked for and received special permission from the Lord to give the bread to David. However, the text is not clear that the priest did actually inquire of the Lord for David, much less that the inquiry was about bread and that the Lord responded affirmatively. This view goes beyond anything even remotely suggested in the text.
Third, some suggest that, in the case of an emergency, the ceremonial rules could be set aside for the “greater good.” David seems to appeal to the priest on this basis, and, ultimately, this may have been why.The priest gave him the bread. The priest made sure that David and his men had “kept themselves from women” (1 Samuel 21:4-5), as sexual relations would have made them ceremonially unclean for the day (see Leviticus 15:18).
Finally, it is possible that both David and the priests simply had an inadequate understanding of the law. They both seemed to assume that if David’s men were in a state of ritual purity, then eating the showbread would be proper. (Of course, it is also possible that this was simply a quick justification that would not have held up under scrutiny.)
If Jesus had never commented on this incident, there would be little question about David’s actions. In fleeing for his life, he lied to a priest, perhaps tricked him, and ate bread that was not meant for him. While David was a man after God’s own heart “But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.”, (1 Samuel 13:14), he had many failures and shortcomings, and he is not an example to follow in every instance.
The words of Jesus seem to make clear that David was violating the law by eating the showbread. Jesus says it was unlawful: “He went into the house of God, and he and his companions broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread” “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?”, (Matthew 12:4, NLT). Taken at face value, these words show that David was a lawbreaker.
On the other hand, it is possible that Jesus was using irony when He said David did what was “not laAwful.” Jesus could have been using what today we call “air quotes.” In the next verse, Jesus also says that the priests “desecrate” the Sabbath in the performance of their Sabbath-day duties «Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? », (Matthew 12:5). It is obvious that when Jesus uses the word desecrate, He is speaking tongue-in-cheek. Could He be doing the same thing with the description not lawful in verse 4?
As Jesus pointed out, priests work on the Sabbath, so clearly, there are some exceptions to the Sabbath-day rule «Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? », (Matthew 12:5). Could this also imply that there are some “common sense” exceptions to other laws—such as the one regarding the special bread that David ate? In Matthew 12:7, Jesus quotes from the Old Testament: “I desire mercy not sacrifice” «For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. », (Hosea 6:6). This suggests that alleviating human suffering is more important than following the letter of the law. Yes, David broke the letter of the law, but those in need received mercy.
In a parallel passage, Jesus states, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” «And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: », (Mark 2:27). In other words, the Sabbath was designed to serve and benefit man, not the other way around. Caring for human needs takes precedence over keeping the letter of the law. Jesus uses this principle of cCaring for others as a rationale for healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-14). This line of reasoning aligns with the third perspective mentioned earlier: in situations of urgency or to show compassion, the ceremonial regulations can be adjusted. There is no necessity to adhere strictly to formalities when someone is in need.
In the same context, Jesus also emphasizes that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Luke 6:5). In other words, He is the One who establishes the regulations—a clear assertion of His divinity. As the Lord of the Sabbath, He has the authority to determine what is permissible on that day. Indeed, just as God could have allowed David to eat the showbread, Jesus could permit His disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath.
Jesus’ primary message appears to be a critique of the Pharisees for their hypocritical focus on minor details. While what David did was technically against the law, they viewed him as a heroic figure. Conversely, what Jesus’ disciples did was within the bounds of the law, as they were not truly harvesting but simply gathering grains to eat as they walked. The Pharisees did not condemn David for his actual transgression, yet they were quick to criticize Jesus for an action that was permissible.
If the Pharisees justified David’s actions based on the concept of a “greater good,” then they should also accept what Jesus did. If they excused David by suggesting that God might have granted him special permission, then they should likewise accept Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, who had the authority to make exceptions. If they were lenient towards David, a flawed individual who acted unlawfully, then they should also be understanding of the actions of David’s descendant, Jesus, even if they disapproved of them but were within the law. Ultimately, Jesus’ commentary does not focus on David’s deeds but rather on the Pharisees’ inconsistent treatment of David compared to their treatment of Jesus, who is the Son of David.It seems evident that when David ate the showbread, he violated the law, as he did on many other occasions in various ways. God overlooked David’s transgressions in anticipation of the ultimate sacrifice that would be made on the cross (Romans 3:25-26).
There are numerous instances in the Old Testament where the biblical figures engage in actions that are neither condemned nor praised. In such cases, we must exercise caution when considering their behaviors as examples to emulate.
