Verse 3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?
Note that what David and his companions did on that occasion was UNLAWFUL, nor does Jesus say that they were blameless in so doing. That was not the point of bringing up the conduct of David. Some commentators have drawn unjustifiable conclusions from this, as, for example, Dummelow, who wrote:
He (Christ) laid down the principle that even the Divine Law itself, so far as it is purely ceremonial, is subservient to human needs, and can be broken without sin for adequate cause.[1]
We agree with McGarvey's words,
If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end, even, of self-denial?[2]
Why then did Christ mention those unlawful actions of David? It was because the Pharisees wholeheartedly approved of that far more flagrant case of sabbath-breaking by David (for David's action WAS unlawful; the disciples' was not), and yet were willing to press an accusation of wrongdoing against the Christ for something of infinitely less consequence. That the Pharisees did approve David's conduct was well known; and, if they had not approved it, they could have turned Jesus' words against him by saying, "So, you class yourself with David, but both you and David are sinners." That they did not so respond proves that they approved of David's conduct. Thus, their hypocrisy was open for all to see.
[1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 666.
[2] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 104.
Be the first to react on this!
