Q: In Matthew 12:3, and in Mark 2:25-28, Jesus asks the Pharisees if they had read what David did when he and those with him were hungry, and he took the shewbread at Nob. They mustve shaken their heads No, since in First Samuel 21, when David arrives at Nob, hes alone. Jesus description of the events contradicts the description in First Samuel 21.
A: Let's start resolving this difficult problem by comparing the Synoptics:
Mt. 12:3-4 ~ But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him, How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mk. 2:25-26 ~ And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
Lk. 6:3-4 ~ And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
Now, figuring that Matthew and Luke both used Markan material as a source when they were composing their accounts, one can observe/deduce that both Matthew and Luke did not perpetuate the phrase in the days of Abiathar the high priest so as to avoid raising a diversionary question. [Note: theres a small textual issue in the Markan parallel, which I hope to address later.] But neither Matthew nor Luke omits the part about David having companions. Why, when Matthew and Luke took a step to avoid one diversionary question (the Abimelech-or-Abiathar issue), did they not take one more small step to avoid another one? I think that the answer is: because they did not think that Jesus statements about Davids companions would provoke diversionary questions.
Jesus is resorting here to a form of rabbinical discourse that could be described as a sort of game. Jesus wasnt trying to teach the Pharisees the contents of First Samuel 21; He was vindicating His disciples act of plucking wheat on the sabbath-day. His statement is a feint; a verbal gambit. Heres how it might have played out, with some imaginative paraphrasing:
Jesus: So, youre criticizing my students for plucking the grain on the sabbath-day, eh? Havent you read, in Abiathars High-Priesthood, about what David did at Nob, when he and his men were hungry, and he entered the house of God and took the holy Bread of the Presence, which is reserved for the priests, and ate it, and gave some to his companions?
Pharisee: No, not at all; David was alone when he came to Ahimelech; this is plain to see in the Scripture.
Jesus: Yes, but what we see in Scripture is not what Ahimelech saw at the time. Yet Ahimelech, taken in by Davids ruse, went ahead and gave the sacred loaves to David, on the premise that they would be given to Davids soldiers, even though this was against regulations. Why? Because Ahimelech knew the truth that you are failing to realize: God gave such regulations to be a blessing, not a curse.
We dont have the last two parts of that conversation in the Gospels, probably because the Pharisees perceived what Jesus was doing, and declined to take the bait, so to speak. But I think this, or something a lot like it, is whats going on here.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Let's start resolving this difficult problem by comparing the Synoptics:
Mt. 12:3-4 ~ But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him, How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mk. 2:25-26 ~ And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
Lk. 6:3-4 ~ And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
Now, figuring that Matthew and Luke both used Markan material as a source when they were composing their accounts, one can observe/deduce that both Matthew and Luke did not perpetuate the phrase in the days of Abiathar the high priest so as to avoid raising a diversionary question. [Note: theres a small textual issue in the Markan parallel, which I hope to address later.] But neither Matthew nor Luke omits the part about David having companions. Why, when Matthew and Luke took a step to avoid one diversionary question (the Abimelech-or-Abiathar issue), did they not take one more small step to avoid another one? I think that the answer is: because they did not think that Jesus statements about Davids companions would provoke diversionary questions.
Jesus is resorting here to a form of rabbinical discourse that could be described as a sort of game. Jesus wasnt trying to teach the Pharisees the contents of First Samuel 21; He was vindicating His disciples act of plucking wheat on the sabbath-day. His statement is a feint; a verbal gambit. Heres how it might have played out, with some imaginative paraphrasing:
Jesus: So, youre criticizing my students for plucking the grain on the sabbath-day, eh? Havent you read, in Abiathars High-Priesthood, about what David did at Nob, when he and his men were hungry, and he entered the house of God and took the holy Bread of the Presence, which is reserved for the priests, and ate it, and gave some to his companions?
Pharisee: No, not at all; David was alone when he came to Ahimelech; this is plain to see in the Scripture.
Jesus: Yes, but what we see in Scripture is not what Ahimelech saw at the time. Yet Ahimelech, taken in by Davids ruse, went ahead and gave the sacred loaves to David, on the premise that they would be given to Davids soldiers, even though this was against regulations. Why? Because Ahimelech knew the truth that you are failing to realize: God gave such regulations to be a blessing, not a curse.
We dont have the last two parts of that conversation in the Gospels, probably because the Pharisees perceived what Jesus was doing, and declined to take the bait, so to speak. But I think this, or something a lot like it, is whats going on here.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
