Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 6:4

How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

4. did take and eat ] St Mark says that this was “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” The priest who actually gave the bread to David was Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar.

the shewbread ] Literally, ‘loaves of setting forth;’ “continual bread,” Num 4:7. “Bread of the Face,” i.e. set before the Presence of God, Lev 24:6-7. Comp. “Angel of the Face” Lev 24:6-8; Exo 25:30; Exo 29:33. They were twelve unleavened, loaves sprinkled with frankincense set on a little golden table.

which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone ] “It shall be Aaron’s and his sons: and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him,” Lev 24:9. Thus David, their favourite saint and hero, had openly and fearlessly violated the letter of the Law with the full sanction of the High Priest, on the plea of necessity, in other words because mercy is better than sacrifice; and because the higher law of moral obligation must always supersede the lower law of ceremonial. This was a proof by way of fact from the Kethubim or sacred books ( Hagiographa); in St Matthew our Lord adds a still more striking argument by way of principle from the Law itself. By its own provisions the Priests in the laborious work of offering sacrifices violated the Sabbath and yet were blameless. Hence the later Jews deduced the remarkable rule that “there is no sabbatism in the Temple,” (Num 28:9). And Jesus added “But I say to you there is something greater ( ) than the Temple here.” The appeal to their own practice is given in Luk 14:5.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 4. After this verse, the Codex Bezae and two ancient MSS. quoted by Wechel, have the following extraordinary addition:

, , , , .

On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said unto him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the law. Whence this strange addition proceeded, it is hard to tell. The meaning seems to be this: If thou now workest on the Jewish Sabbath, from a conviction that that Sabbath is abolished, and a new one instituted in its place, then happy art thou, for thou hast got Divine instruction in the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom; but if thou doest this through a contempt for the law of God, then thou art accursed, forasmuch as thou art a transgressor of the law. The Itala version of the Codex Bezae, for , transgressor, has this semi-barbaric word, trabaricator.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

[See comments on Lu 6:3]

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Did take (). Second aorist active participle of . Not in Mark and Matthew. See Matt 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28 for discussion of details about the shewbread and the five arguments in defence of his conduct on the sabbath (example of David, work of the priests on the sabbath, prophecy of Ho 6:6, purpose of the sabbath for man, the Son of Man lord of the sabbath). It was an overwhelming and crushing reply to these pettifogging ceremonialists to which they could not reply, but which increased their anger. Codex D transfers verse 5 to after verse 10 and puts here the following: “On the same day beholding one working on the sabbath he said to him: Man, if you know what you are doing, happy are you; but if you do not know, cursed are you and a transgressor of the law.”

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Did take. Peculiar to Luke.

The shew – bread. See on Mr 2:26.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “How he went into the house of God,” (hos eiselthen eis ton oikon tou theou) “How he entered into the house of God,” the temple, Mat 12:4; Mar 2:26.

2) “And did take and eat the shewbread,” (kai tous artous tes protheseos labon ephagen) “And how he took the loaves of the setting (permanent shewbread) and ate,” which was to be eaten by the priests only, according to the law, in the holy house of God, Mat 12:4; Mar 2:16. Hunger overruled a positive law of exclusion concerning the shewbread.

3) “And gave also to them that were with him;” (kai edoken tois met’ autou) “And how he doled out the same to those who were with him;” Mar 2:26; Mat 12:4.

4) “Which it is not lawful to eat,” (hous ouk eksestin phagein) “Which (bread) it is (exists) not lawful to eat,” at all, Mat 12:4; Exo 25:30. Luke makes no reference to the high priest Abiatar, as in Mar 2:26, and no mention of the sabbath law’s being superseded by higher interests as in Mat 12:5.

5) “But for the priests alone?” (ei me monous tous hereis) “Except the priests only,” Mar 2:26; Lev 24:5-9. It was for Aaron and his sons to be eaten by them and their priestly successors only, in the holy place only. There were twelve “loaves of the setting,” unleavened loaves, sprinkled with frankincense, one for each of the twelve tribes, placed on a golden table known as the table of shewbread, Heb 9:2.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

4. How After this verse two or three ancient manuscripts have a remarkable addition in the following words: “On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, He said unto him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the law.”

By this anecdote Jesus is made to assume that under his dispensation the Sabbath is abolished. If the man does not know this abolishment, and so is purposing to violate the Sabbath, he is, in heart and will, a transgressor. If, however, he knows what he is doing, namely, working under a dispensation without a sabbath, he is then a Christian, and works in accordance with conscience, right, and law. But as no such assumption of the abolition of the Sabbath is founded on any thing that Jesus ever taught, we hold the passage as not containing a genuine saying of Jesus.

(1.) We have said in our introduction to this volume, p. 6, that very few traces exist of our Lord’s sayings outside of our canonical gospels. Mr. Westcott, in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 445-453, has made a collection of all such sayings and doings to be found either in the canonical epistles or in the early Christian writers. The entire number, including those that appear to be variations of gospel passages, is thirty two. Very few of these could be accepted as genuine. The only one incontestably genuine is found in Act 20:35.

(2.) In regard to this present passage we fully agree with Grotius (against Van Oosterzee) that it was “interpolated by some Marcionite.”

Marcion was a so-called heretic, living near the close of the apostolic day. He was an anti-Judaic ultraist, who not only, with St. Paul, rejected the necessity of keeping the Mosaic law for salvation, but even contemned not only the Mosaic law, but the God of the Old Testament, as an evil being. The Ebionites and Marcionites were opposite extremes. (See note on Luk 6:20. )

Marcion accepted the Gospel of Luke, (being the most Gentile of the four,) but mutilated it to suit his own purposes. (See note on Mat 5:17.) Now the assumption that the Sabbath is abrogated under the New Testament is not only unsustainable and false, but; as being a repudiation of the law, even during the life of Jesus, and by Jesus, is truly Marcionite in its character. And being an interpolation, we believe Grotius was right in saying, “I think it was inserted by some Marcionite.”

But the passage, though spurious, strikingly illustrates how rectitude depends upon the interior motive, view, or purpose. If the man knew not the sabbath law to have been abolished, it was his purpose to break the law; and of that intentional transgression he was guilty. The law existed for him. Whatever is not of faith is sin.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments