Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 2:25
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
25. Have ye never read ] Rather, Did ye never read? With a gentle irony He adopts one of the favourite formulas of their own Rabbis, and inquires if they had never read what David their favourite hero had done when flying from Saul. He came to the high priest at Nob, and entered the Tabernacle, and ate of the hallowed bread (1Sa 21:1-9), of the “twelve cakes of fine flour” which no stranger might eat (Exo 29:33).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mar 2:25-26
And He said unto them, Have ye never read what David did?
How to read the Bible
I. In order to the true reading of the Scriptures there must be an understanding of them. The mind must be well awake to it. We must meditate upon it. We must pray about it. We must use all means and helps.
II. In reading we ought to seek out the spiritual teaching of the Word. This should be the case in reference to the historical passages, ceremonial precepts, and doctrinal statements.
III. Such a reading of Scripture as implies the understanding of, and the entrance into, its spiritual meaning, and the discovery of the Divine Person, who is the spiritual meaning, is profitable. It often begets spiritual life. It comforts the soul It nourishes the soul. It guides us. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Pedantic Bible readers
The scribes and Pharisees were great readers of the law. They made notes of very little importance, but still very curious notes-as to which was the middle verse of the entire Old Testament, which verse was half-way to the middle, and how many times such a word occurred, and the size of the letter, and its peculiar position. According to Pharisaic interpretation, to rub an ear of corn is a kind of threshing, and, as it is very wrong to thresh on the Sabbath day, therefore it must be very wrong to rub out an ear or two of wheat when you are hungry on the Sabbath morning. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The grace of Bible doctrine
The doctrines of grace are good, but the grace of the doctrines is better. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Living in Gods Word
As I sat, last year, under a wide-spreading beech, I was pleased to mark with prying curiosity the singular habits of that most wonderful of trees, which seems to have an intelligence about it which other trees have not. I wondered at, and admired the beech, but I thought to myself, I do not think half as much of this beech tree as yonder squirrel does. I see him leap from bough to bough, and I feel sure he dearly values the old beech tree, because he has his home somewhere inside it, in a hollow place; these branches are his shelter, and these beech nuts are his food. He lives upon the tree. It is his world, his playground, his granary, his home; indeed it is everything to him, and it is not so to me, for I find my rest and food elsewhere. With Gods Word it is well for us to be like squirrels, living in it, and living on it. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Bible glancing not Bible reading
An old preacher used to say: The Word has mighty free course among many nowadays, for it goes in at one of their ears, and out at the other. So it seems to be with some readers-they read a very great deal because they do not read anything. Their eye glances, but the mind never rests. The soul does not light upon the truth and stay there. It flits over the landscape as a bird might do, but it builds no nest therein, and finds no rest for the sole of its foot. Such reading is not reading. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
An interior reading of Scripture
In prayer there is such a thing as praying in prayer-a praying which is the bowels of the prayer. In praise there is a praising in song, an reward fire of intense devotion, which is the life of the hallelujah. It is even so with the reading of the Scriptures. There is an interior reading, a kernel reading; and, if it be not there, the reading is a mechanical exercise, and profits nothing. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Illumination necessary to emotion
When the high priest went into the holy place he always lit the golden candlestick before he kindled the incense upon the brazen altar, as if to show that the mind must have illumination before the affections can rise towards God. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Use of the Scriptures
The cause of so many gross and foolish opinions which many amongst us hold and maintain, is nothing else but their ignorance of the Scriptures, either because they read them not duly and diligently, or else because they understand them not aright. How many foolish and absurd opinions are held by ignorant people in many places? Such as these for example: That faith is nothing but a mans good meaning: That God is served by rehearsing the Ten Commandments and the Creed instead of prayers: That the Sabbath is kept well enough if men and women come to church, and be present at public prayers and at the sermon, though they spend the rest of the day either idly or profanely: That the Sabbath is well enough sanctified by bare reading of prayers, and so much preaching is needless: That it is lawful to swear in common talk to that which is true: That in religion it is best to do as the most do: That a man may make of his own as much as he can: That such as are not book learned need have no knowledge of religion. These, and such-like absurd opinions, proceed from nothing but ignorance of the Scriptures. If we would avoid such errors, and be led into all truth of doctrine necessary to salvation, let us
(1) be frequent and diligent in hearing the Scriptures explained in church;
(2) search them diligently and often in private reading;
(3) pray daily to God to open our understanding, that we may perceive their true meaning;
(4) confer with others touching those things which we read and hear. (G. Petter.)
Mercy better than sacrifice
When the Romans had ravaged the province of Azazane, and seven thousand Persians were brought to Armida, where they suffered extreme want. Acases, the bishop of that city, observed that as God said, I love mercy better than sacrifice, He would certainly be better pleased with the relief of His suffering creatures, than with being served with gold and silver in their churches. The clergy were of the same opinion. The consecrated vessels were sold, and with the proceeds, the seven thousand Persians were not only maintained during the war, but sent home at its conclusion with money in their pockets. Varenes, the Persian monarch, was so charmed with this humane action, that he invited the bishop to his capital, where he received him with the utmost reverencer and for his sake conferred many favours on the Christians.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
And he said unto them,…. By way of answer to their question, and which was a full one, and enough to silence them:
have ye never read what David did; referring to the history in
1Sa 21:1.
when he had need: of bread, was in great necessity, and in the utmost distress:
and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? which was a justifiable reason for what he and his company did; as it was for the action of the disciples; being in a like case, and therefore very appropriate to the purpose; [See comments on Mt 12:3].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Had need. Mark adds this to the was an hungered, which is in both Matthew and Luke. The analogy lay in the necessity. The had need is generic; the was hungry is specific, describing the peculiar character of the need.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) ”And He said unto them,” (kai legei autois) “And responded to them,” from the word, their own Scripture which were “true from the beginning,” Psa 119:16.
2) “Have ye never read what David did,” (oude
anegonte ti epoiesen David) “Have you all never r what David did?” To raise a question regarding their possible ignorance regarding David’s conduct or teaching their failure to accept a lesson he taught them, must h been a severe rebuke to these “know-all,” and “bet than-thou,” Pharisees.
3) “When he had need, and was an hungered,”
chreian eschen kai epeinasen) “When he had a need food.) and hungered,” was nigh famishing, 1Sa 21:1-6.
4) “He, and they that were with him?” (autos kai met’ autou) “What he and those with him did?” Little different in nature from what Jesus and the disciple Jesus who were with Him had done. Each and all eaten to satisfy a real physical hunger, a need of moment. See also Luk 6:6-10; Mat 12:9-13.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him? How, in the passage headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’, he entered into the house of God, and ate the shewbread which it is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and gave also to those who were with him?”
At first this answer seems to have little to do with the question, for there is no suggestion that David did it on the Sabbath (although it is true that that is at a later time suggested by a leading Rabbi). But Jesus’ point is looking higher than that. He is talking about authority. In the passage in question (1Sa 21:1-6) David and his men, pretending to be on the king’s business, required food, and the priest told them that that the only food available was the shewbread which had been on the table in the house of God (Exo 25:23-30). This was intended only for the priests for it was ‘holy’, that is, set apart as God’s. But, no doubt in some fear of this powerful man with his armed warriors (see Mar 2:1), he allowed him to have the shewbread for his men as long as they had kept themselves from women and were not therefore ‘unclean’. He basically yielded to David’s authority. (It may be that the regulations were not being so strictly enforced at that time, as often happens with ritual. But it may simply be that the priest was prepared to allow sacrilege to save his life).
The point of the story could be seen as indicating two things. Firstly that when men were hungry and in need cultic regulations could be set aside for people in a suitable condition, and secondly that this was on the authority of and by the action of the future King David. Yet the Pharisees had never been heard to condemn David for his behaviour, because David was held in such high regard. Rather they saw it as his right because of who he was, the chosen and ‘anointed’ of God. And it was clear also that the Scriptures had not condemned it. But the question must be asked, why not? And the answer could only be that they accepted that the regulations could be set aside in cases of need when one with sufficient authority from God was there to set them aside.
The fact is that Jesus did not argue that they were simply accusing the disciples on a technicality. He appears to have accepted that they could be seen as ‘breaking’ the Sabbath Law as interpreted by the Rabbis. (What he says later, that the Sabbath was made for man, seems to confirm this. That only comes in as an argument if this was seen as the breaking of the strict Sabbath rule as interpreted by the Rabbis). Nor would either Jesus or the Pharisees have agreed that God’s Law could be set aside for man’s convenience. (And the disciples were neither starving nor hungry soldiers on the run). Nor would either Jesus or the Pharisees have allowed the specific and forceful ordinances of the Law in the Pentateuch, with their blessings and cursings, to be easily set aside. The Law was seen as rigid in both their eyes. Jesus would not have maintained otherwise, and certainly the Pharisees would not have accepted it. And both knew that the Law was especially rigid about the Sabbath. A man had been stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32).
Thus the point could only be that the regulations could be set aside in cases of need when one with sufficient authority from God was there to set them aside. And Jesus certainly puts the onus on David. “Did you never read what David did? — he entered in — ate the shewbread — gave also to those who were with him.” And that is the point. It was because it was David that the action remained uncriticised.
The implication must therefore be that the disciples could also therefore be allowed to gather food and feed themselves on the Sabbath when they were hungry (not a little peckish) because the equivalent in authority to David was permitting it. The Sabbath Law could be set aside in this case because the Son of Man had determined it, and ‘the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath’. This is the only explanation that fits all the facts.
It would always have been open to Jesus to argue that what the disciples had done was not really ‘working’ and should not therefore be treated as a breach of the Sabbath (they had probably done it unconsciously not for a moment thinking of it as work, possibly unaware of the Pharisees’ detailed regulations). But He was well aware that His opponents would be able to produce Rabbinic teaching that asserted that it was. What He was asserting therefore was that it was allowable in this case because an authority greater than that of the Rabbis was present.
Jesus’ point was that the Kingly Rule of God was here and that its authority was being exercised by Him. Thus He had the right to make new regulations about the Sabbath, as David had before Him about the shewbread, in his case also when his new kingdom was about to come in. This also ties in with his illustrations of the patching of the old clothes and the filling of the old wine skins with new wine. The old had passed, the new had come. In a very real sense it was a Messianic claim, but it was discreetly put. It was a claim to a unique authority from God as had been illustrated by His teaching, the casting out of evil spirits and His power over disease, and was now claimed over the interpretation of the Law. It was the equivalent of, ‘but I say to you’ (found regularly in Matthew 5).
‘In the passage headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’. For the purpose of the readings in the Synagogue the Law was split into sections each given a heading. This would then be one of the headings, the heading of the passage containing the incident of the shewbread. It is then not saying that it happened in the days of Abiathar as High Priest, only that it is described in Scripture in that passage which was headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’ (e.g. 1 Samuel 21-22). Another such passage was headed ‘The Bush’ (Luk 20:37). (This incident actually led to Abiathar being made High Priest).
Others see the mention of Abiathar as taking a famous and unmistakable name in order to date the incident (thus ‘in the days of Abiathar who subsequently became the High Priest’, or ‘during the lifetime of Abiathar, who later became High Priest’). It should be noted that no one appears to have objected to this description, neither the Pharisees nor the Gospel writers. And yet they knew the Scriptures better than most of us do, and were as well aware as Jesus was that it was Ahimelech who was actually High Priest at the time. They were clearly satisfied with the accuracy of the description.
‘The house of God.’ For an example of this description being applied to the Tabernacle see Jdg 18:31.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
Ver. 25. Have ye never read? ] Satis salse, q.d. Ignoratis adhuc, quod adeo notum et tritum. Miter ego vestram vel inscitiam, vel ignaviam. It is a shame for you, that you are yet so stupid or so stubborn.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] Himself, taking up the cause of his disciples and not leaving their defence to themselves.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Have ye never read . . . ? = Did ye never read . . . ? See App-143. Figure of speech Anteieagoge, App-6.
never = not (as in Mar 2:17).
had need. A Divine supplement to “was hungry”(Matthew and Luke). Occurs only in Mark. “Lied need” is, generic, and “was hungered” is specific (explaining the need).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25. ] Himself, taking up the cause of his disciples and not leaving their defence to themselves.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Have: Mar 12:20, Mar 12:26, Mat 19:4, Mat 21:16, Mat 21:42, Mat 22:31, Luk 10:26
what: 1Sa 21:3-6
Reciprocal: 1Sa 21:6 – gave him Mat 12:3 – what Mar 12:10 – have Luk 6:3 – Have
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Have ye ‘never read implies that they had read that account, but were ignoring the event for the time being because it would condemn-them for inconsistency.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The incident Jesus referred to is in 1Sa 21:1-6. Mark was the only evangelist to mention that Abiathar was the high priest then. This seemingly contradicts the Old Testament since Ahimelech, the father or Abiathar, was the high priest then according to the writer of 1 Samuel. The best solution to this problem seems to be that Jesus referred to Abiathar because he was the better-known priest during David’s reign. The phrase "in the time of" or "in the days of" probably means "during the lifetime of" rather than "during the high priesthood of." [Note: James Morison, A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. 60-63, gave 10 possible solutions to this problem.]
Jesus’ point was this. David technically broke the ritual law by eating bread that only the priests were to eat. Nevertheless he could do so because David was on the Lord’s service. As such, he could do things other Israelites, not on the Lord’s service, could not do. Furthermore the offense was a matter of religious ritual, not a moral violation of the law, as the Pharisees were implying. Another example of violating the letter of the law to observe its spirit is King Hezekiah’s granting the Israelites who were unclean permission to eat the Passover (2Ch 30:18-20). God did not object to that either. Another explanation of David’s action is that God permitted it because of the urgency of his situation and that Jesus was claiming that His mission was equally urgent. [Note: Mark L. Bailey, in The New Testament Explorer, p. 72.]
The Pharisees failed in two respects. First, they did not distinguish which laws were more important. Serving the Lord is more important than resting, and man is more important than the Sabbath.
"Human need is a higher law than religious ritual." [Note: Ralph Earle, The Gospel According to Mark, p. 49.]
Second, they did not recognize Jesus as the anointed Servant of the Lord that the Old Testament predicted would come, the Son of David. Mark did not mention, as Matthew did, that Jesus pointed out that one greater than the temple had come (Mat 12:6). Mark’s emphasis was not on Jesus as the King as much as it was on Jesus as the Lord’s anointed Servant. As God’s anointed Servant, Jesus had the right to provide for His disciples’ physical needs even though that meant violating a tradition governing ritual worship.