Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 6:3
And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry, and they which were with him;
3. Have ye not read so much as this ] Rather, Did ye not even read this? He answers them in one of their own formulae, but with a touch of irony at their ignorance, which we trace also in the “Did ye never read?” of St Mark; never though ye are Scribes and devote all your time to the Scriptures? Perhaps the reproving question may have derived an additional sting from the fact that the very passage which our Lord quoted (1Sa 21:1-6) had been read on that Sabbath as the Haphtarah of the day. The service for the day must have been over, because no meal was eaten till then. This fact does not however help us to determine which was the second-first Sabbath, because the present Jewish lectionary is of later date.
and they which were with him ] That the day on which this occurred was a Sabbath results from the fact that it was only on the Sabbath that the new shewbread was placed on the table, Lev 24:8-9.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
3. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath ] Rather, ‘Lord even of the Sabbath,’ though you regard the Sabbath as the most important command of the whole Law. In St Mark we have further, “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
This was one of no less than six great occasions on which the fury of the Pharisees had been excited by the open manner in which our Lord set aside as frivolous and unauthoritative the burdens which the Oral Law had attached to the Sabbath. The other instances are the healing of the cripple at Bethesda (Joh 5:1-16); the healing of the withered hand (Luk 6:1-11); of the blind man at Siloam (Joh 9:1-41); of the paralytic woman (Luk 13:14-17); and of the man with the dropsy (Luk 14:1-6). In laying His axe at the root of a proud and ignorant Sabbatarianism, He was laying His axe at the root of all that “miserable micrology” which they had been accustomed to take for religious life. They had turned the Sabbath from a holy delight into a revolting bondage. The Apocryphal Gospels are following a true tradition in the prominence which they give to Sabbath healing, as a charge against Him on His trial before the Sanhedrin.
In the famous Cambridge Manuscript (D), the Codex Bezae, there is here added the following passage: “ On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, He said to him, O man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed: but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed, and a transgressor of the Law.” This very remarkable addition cannot be accepted as genuine on the authority of a single MS., and can only be regarded as one of the agrapha dogmata, or ‘unrecorded
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 3. What David did] See on Luke 2:26; Luke 2:27.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And Jesus answering them, said,…. For they brought the charge against the disciples to him, being desirous to know what he would say, and that they might have something to accuse him of; and who, at once, took up the cause of his disciples, and vindicated them, by observing what David did, when he, and his men were an hungry; how that he went into the tabernacle, and took the showbread, and ate of it, and gave it to his men, who also ate of it; which, according to the law, was only allowed to priests; and by taking notice of another instance, which this evangelist does not relate; namely, how on the sabbath days the priests, by doing various servile works, profaned the sabbath day, and yet were not charged with any blame;
[See comments on Mt 12:3].
[See comments on Mt 12:4].
[See comments on Mt 12:5].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Not even this ( ). This small point only in Luke.
What (). Literally,
which . Mark 2:25; Matt 12:3 have (what).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Have ye not read [ ] ? The A. V. misses the force of ouJude : “have ye not so much as read?” Rev., “have ye not read even this?”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And Jesus answering them said,” (kai apokritheis pros autous eipen ho lesous) “And replying Jesus said directly to them,” to their grumbling, carping to His disciples, Mat 12:3.
2) “Have ye not read so much as this, what David did,” (oude touto anegnote ho epoiesen David) “Have you all not even read this which David did,” as recounted 1Sa 21:6. Or have you paid no attention to it?
3) “When himself was an hungered,” (hopote epeiasen auton) “When he himself was hungered?” much as my disciples are hungry on this holy sabbath day? Mar 2:25.
4) “And they which were with him;” (kai hoi met’ autou ontes) “And what the ones who were with him did;” as well, his companions who were with him, much as mine who journey with me today? 1Sa 21:1-6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not read even this, what David did, when he was hungry, he, and those who were with him? How he entered into the house of God, and took and ate the showbread, and gave also to those who were with him, that which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone?” ’
Jesus replied from a well known passage concerning David. There David and his companions had persuaded the High Priest of the day to let him and his men have the old showbread which had been taken from the Table of Showbread in the Tabernacle when, as was the custom, it was replaced. This was holy and could only be eaten by the priests. But David had pleaded special circumstances and that his men were in a state of consecration, and it had been allowed. No one now criticised David for this because he was seen as having been God’s anointed. Jesus’ point was that as the Greater than David as ‘the Son of Man’, He had the same right. What David could lawfully do for himself and his men, He could lawfully do for Himself and His men. He could interpret the Law in their favour.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Luk 6:3. An hungered Or Hungry.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
Ver. 3. Have ye not read ] Yes, over and over, but either understood not, or, through malice, dissembled it. Quilibet nostrum de lege interrogatus facilius quam nomini suo respondet, saith Josephus. The Jews were all very well versed in the Scriptures.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] Have ye not read so much as this? E. V.: i.e. ‘Are ye so utterly ignorant of the spirit of Scripture?’ see Mar 12:10 , where the same expression occurs.
The remarkable substitution in [56] for Luk 6:5 seems to be an interpolation, but hardly an invention of a later time. Its form and contents speak for its originality and, I am disposed to believe, its authenticity.
[56] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ, so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history; but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 6:3 . , for Mk.’s and Mt.’s = not even; have ye so little understood the spirit of the O. T.? (De Wette). The word might be analysed into , , when it will mean: but have ye not then read this? So Hofmann, Nsgen, Hahn. , here only in N. T., if even here, for many good MSS. have (W.H [61] ).
[61] Westcott and Hort.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Jesus. App-98.
answering . . . said. See note on Deu 1:41.
them = to (Greek. pros. App-104) them.
Have ye not read. See App-143.
not = not so much as. Greek. ouden, compound of on. App-105.
what David did. See notes on Mat 12:4.
with = in company with. Greek meta. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3. ] Have ye not read so much as this? E. V.: i.e. Are ye so utterly ignorant of the spirit of Scripture? see Mar 12:10, where the same expression occurs.
The remarkable substitution in [56] for Luk 6:5 seems to be an interpolation, but hardly an invention of a later time. Its form and contents speak for its originality and, I am disposed to believe, its authenticity.
[56] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ,-so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history;-but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 6:3. , Have ye not even read this) How often truly some passage of Scripture exactly suited to the existing state of things (the particular contingency), is presented before the eyes of men when they are thinking of nothing of the kind!-V. g.- , what David did) The text of this very Sabbath exhibited the straits to which David was reduced, and the eating of the shewbread follows immediately after this text. Thence it is that He has used the formula, which exactly squares with this, . On the same Sabbath the Saviour appealed to the Priests, who in the temple profane the Sabbath (by slaying sacrifices), and yet are blameless, Mat 12:5 : viz. at that very time of year Leviticus used to be read in the regular course, and in it there is frequent mention of offering sacrifices, even on the Sabbath: ch. Luk 6:12, Luk 8:33, Luk 16:29, Luk 23:38.-Harm., p. 307, 308.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Have: Mat 12:3, Mat 12:5, Mat 19:4, Mat 21:16, Mat 21:42, Mat 22:31, Mar 2:25, Mar 12:10, Mar 12:26
what: 1Sa 21:3-6, Mat 12:3, Mat 12:4, Mar 2:25, Mar 2:26
Reciprocal: 1Sa 21:6 – gave him
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
This paragraph is explained at Mat 12:4.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 6:3. Have ye not read even this? A strong expression (comp. Mar 12:10) implying their utter ignorance of what the Scriptures meant.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 3
What David did, &c. When pressed with hunger, on an emergency described 1 Samuel 21:1-6, the sacred prohibitions of the tabernacle service were waived in his favor, and he took the holy bread for food.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Jesus drew an analogy from Scripture (cf. 1Sa 21:1-9). His point was twofold, first that ceremonial traditions are secondary to divine service.
What David did was contrary to the Mosaic Law (Lev 24:9), yet Scripture did not condemn him for what he did (cf. 2Ch 30:18-20). What Jesus’ disciples did was not contrary to the Mosaic Law, so the Pharisees should not have condemned them for what they did. Why did the Scriptures not condemn David for what he did? They did not because David was serving God. God permitted him to violate the ceremonial law, but not the moral law, without condemnation. In this sense he was above the law. (This may explain why God allowed David to perform some normally priestly functions such as offering sacrifices without rebuke.) Therefore the Son of Man (Luk 6:5), who is superior to David, had the right to set aside a Pharisaic tradition, not a divine law, in the service of God.