Did God Approve of David Eating the Showbread?

August 16th, 2024

Once when Jesus and His disciples were walking through a grainfield on the Sabbath, His disciples plucked some grain, rubbed the chaff off, and ate the kernels that remained. This might sound like stealing to some modern readers, but Jews were allowed by God to eat small amounts of the produce of their neighbors (Deuteronomy 23:25). Taking the grain wasn’t a problem to the Pharisees who observed them doing this; the problem to them was that they had done so on the Sabbath day. They accused them of “doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath,” namely, doing work by plucking grain (harvesting) and separating it from its chaff (winnowing) (Luke 6:2; cf. Matthew 12:2; Mark 2:24).

While work most certainly was forbidden on the Sabbath day (e.g., Exodus 35:2) and while typical harvesting and winnowing would constitute work, only the most prejudiced of minds would look at what the disciples did and construe it as work. The disciples were hungry and were taking advantage of a God authorized way to feed themselves. Any work they did was incidental to that goal. Knowing this, Jesus stood up in defense of His disciples.

While Jesus’ defense consisted of a few different lines of reasoning, one argument that each of the three accounts that records the event preserves is His reference to another event during the life of David. The three readings are as follows:

“But He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?’” (Matthew 12:3-4)

“But He said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?’” (Mark 2:25-26).

“But Jesus answering them said, ‘Have you not even read this, what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he went into the house of God, took and ate the showbread, and also gave some to those with him, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat?’” (Luke 6:3-4).

While it’s clear that this account in some way offers a defense of the behavior of Jesus’ disciples, what isn’t clear is how it does so. Some believe Jesus’ use of David’s example shows that God approved of what David did. Did He?

Before we give further consideration to Jesus’ words, let’s go back and reflect upon the account He’s referencing. As the record of 1 Samuel 21 begins, David is fleeing from Saul accompanied by a small group of soldiers. Whether by design or by accident, he comes to the place where the tabernacle (a mobile tent used to worship God under the Law of Moses) was located, and he meets Ahimelech, a priest. David asks Ahimelech for some bread for him and his soldiers, but he is told there is no bread but “holy bread” (1 Samuel 21:3-4).

So what exactly is “holy bread.” Under the Law of Moses, priests were instructed to prepare and utilize bread in the worship of God. The bread was initially to be “set in order before the LORD,” but afterwards, Moses commanded, “it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy to him from the offerings of the LORD” (Leviticus 24:5-9). While no punishment is offered for the misappropriation of this bread, it’s worth noting that the very next thing recorded in the text is a young man being put to death for blaspheming “the name of the LORD” (Leviticus 24:10-16). Elsewhere, the Law of Moses forbids taking something designed to be holy and utilizing it in a profane or common way (e.g. Exodus 30:22-38).

When David asks for bread, it’s worth noting that he doesn’t ask for or even mention holy bread. “There is no common bread on hand,” Ahimelech says but then adds, seemingly unprompted, “but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women” (1 Samuel 21:4). A provision for priests to share the bread based on sexual purity isn’t found in the Law of Moses; it’s hard to figure out where he got this idea. In any event, following the text of the ESV, David is able to respond that sexual purity was emphasized during times of war (cf. Deuteronomy 23:9-14), that his young men were “holy even when it is an ordinary journey,” and that they were especially pure “today,” perhaps because the soldiers were “on some business” (1 Samuel 21:2) or perhaps because of the new moon period discussed in the previous chapter (1 Samuel 20:5, 18, 24, 27).^[1] David’s reply satisfies Ahimelech, who hands over the bread.

Before we return to the account of Jesus and His disciples, let’s reflect upon what we’ve seen in this account. While many people draw the conclusion that this represents a straightforward case of human need trumping Divine law, I’d argue that it really isn’t. If it were, why would Ahimelech place any qualification upon David eating the bread? Neither he nor David argue that their needs were more important than God’s requirements. Both seem to be operating under the idea that the “holy bread” needs to be treated with some measure of care, albeit not the care that the Law of Moses describes in detail for other holy things.

Returning to Jesus’ words, regardless of whatever understanding Ahimelech and David had, all three accounts record Jesus’ evaluation of what they did: David and his men did what was “not lawful” by eating the bread (Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). Again, it’s interesting that the immediate conclusion so often reached when Jesus says that this is “not lawful” is for people to say, “Well, it is lawful if it is a matter of life or death.” Neither David and his soldiers nor Jesus’ disciples seem to be on the brink of death or to make any kind of argument that they are. And, even if they did, should we really walk away thinking that while the Bible says “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), that we should actually fear death by starvation more than falling under the condemnation of God’s law? To the contrary, Jesus said, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

So what point is Jesus making? Matthew’s account offers the most detail concerning His conversation with the Pharisees that day, so let’s focus on it. After bringing up the case of David, Jesus adds:

Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:5-8).

Note that while Jesus describes what David did as “not lawful,” He goes on to highlight that what the priests did by working in preparation to worship on the Sabbath left them “blameless,” or, as the NASB reads, “innocent.” He then says that the Pharisees “have condemned the guiltless” by condemning His disciples, using the same Greek word he applied to the priests.

So, if the disciples’ behavior ultimately left them innocent, why did Jesus bring up David and the holy bread? And, to return to the question earlier, in what way did Jesus’ mention of this account offer any defense for His disciples? The point does seem to stand in each of the accounts that Sabbath laws were given by a God who understands human necessity. Mark’s account adds that Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Again, while this doesn’t necessarily mean that human necessity trumps Divine law, it does mean that a God who, as Matthew records, desires “mercy and not sacrifice,” didn’t create the Law of Moses to condemn man for being subject to the human condition (Matthew 12:7).

Perhaps an answer to our questions can be found in the other detail that each of the accounts record: Jesus’ statement, “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8; cf. Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). With these words, Jesus highlights how ridiculous the situation is. The Pharisees are in effect claiming to know Sabbath law better than the One who gave it! Could it be then that Jesus brings up the account to demonstrate that when Pharisees approved of David’s unlawful behavior and condemned His disciples’ lawful behavior, they were demonstrating how little they knew the Law that they claimed to be experts of?

So, did God approve of David eating the holy bread? The short answer is simply that Jesus said it was not lawful. A longer answer should include that the fact David lived during “times of ignorance” that were “overlooked” by a God who understands the human condition and who desires to extend mercy (Acts 17:30). It seems to go beyond the text though to conclude that human need warrants willfully setting aside God’s Law. I’ll conclude by adding the thought-provoking evaluation of J.W. McGarvey:

"Jesus expressly admits that what David did was unlawful; and some have supposed that he here intends to justify it on the ground of necessity, and then to argue that his disciples, though guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath, are justifiable on the same ground… But it can not be that he who refused to turn stones into bread when tortured by a forty days’ fast, and who said, ‘Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, shall becalled least in the kingdom of heaven,’ would approve such a violation of the law as David was guilty of. If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end of suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial.” – J. W. McGarvey, A Commentary on Matthew and Mark

-Patrick Swayne
patrick@tftw.org

_{[1] The KJV/NKJV appears to present David as making a stronger case for them to have the bread than is warranted by the language of text, supplying words and translating the word rendered “journey” in other versions in a less than straightforward way. Most commentators and translators I consulted prefer reading the text something like what is rendered in the ESV/NASB, though some say there may be some subterfuge in David’s words to make it seem like he’s on an important mission, either to add weight to his request for the bread or to protect the priests from any retribution by Saul.}

Posted in Showbread, Shewbread, Holy Bread, Situation Ethics, David, Jesus, Pharisees, Sabbath