Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 12:3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him;
3. Ahimelech, the priest at Nob, gave David and his companions five loaves of the shewbread (1Sa 21:1-7).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But he said unto them … – To vindicate his disciples, he referred them to a similar case, recorded in the Old Testament, and therefore one with which they ought to have been acquainted. This was the case of David. The law commanded that twelve loaves of bread should be laid on the table in the holy place in the tabernacle, to remain a week, and then to be eaten by the priests only. Their place was then supplied by fresh bread. This was called the showbread, Lev 24:5-9. David, fleeing before Saul, weary and hungry, had come to Ahimelech the priest; had found only this bread; had asked it of him, and had eaten it contrary to the letter of the law, 1Sa 21:1-7. David, among the Jews, had high authority. This act had passed uncondemned. It proved that in cases of necessity the laws did not bind a man – a principle which all laws admit. So the necessity of the disciples justified them in doing on the Sabbath what would have been otherwise unlawful.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. – 4. Have ye not read what David did] The original history is in 1Sa 21:1-6.
When he was an hungered] Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the ancients concerning this story in these words: “Our rabbins of blessed memory say, that he gave him the shew-bread, c. The interpretation also of the clause, Yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel, is this: It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for us to eat THESE LOAVES, taken from before the Lord, when we are hungry for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for the table sanctifieth), it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten. And a little after, There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life, beside idolatry, adultery, and murder. That is, a man, according to them, should do any thing but these in order to preserve life.” See Lightfoot.
He entered into the house of God] Viz. the house of Ahimelech the priest, who dwelt at Nob, with whom the tabernacle then was, in which the Divine presence was manifested.
And did eat the shew-bread] – in Hebrew, lechem panim – bread of the presence, or faces, because this bread was to be set continually, lipney Yehovah, before the face of Jehovah. See the notes on Ex 25:23; Ex 25:30.
“Since part of the frankincense put in the bread was to be burnt on the altar for a memorial, Le 24:7, and since Aaron and his sons were to eat it in the holy place, it is evident that this bread typified Christ, first presented as a sacrifice to, or in the presence of, Jehovah, and then becoming spiritual food to such as, in and through him, are spiritual priests to God. See Re 1:6; Re 5:10; Re 20:6; also 1Pe 2:5.” Parkhurst.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark and Luke add little, only Mark specifies the time, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and saith, when he had need, and was an hungred. We have the history, 1Sa 21:1-15. David was upon his flight from Saul, upon the notice of his danger given him by Jonathan, 1Sa 20:1-42, and being hungry, he asks of the high priest five loaves of broad; the high priest tells him he had none but hallowed bread, which the high priest gave him, 1Sa 21:6. What the shewbread was may be read, Lev 24:5-9; it is expressly said, a stranger shall not eat thereof. Now (saith our Saviour) notwithstanding this, David and his followers, being an hungred, did eat thereof, though strictly, according to the letter of the law, none but the priests might eat it.
But some may object: What was this to the purpose? It was not upon the sabbath day.
Answer:
1. It was either upon the sabbath day, or immediately after, for it was to be set on every sabbath day, and to be eaten in the holy place, Lev 24:8,9, and the high priest told David, 1Sa 21:6, that it was taken away to set hot bread in the room of it.
2. But secondly, that which our Saviour produces this for, was to prove a more general proposition, which being proved, the lawfulness of his disciples act would easily be inferred from it. That was this: That the letter of a ritual law is not to be insisted upon, where some eminent necessity urges the contrary, in the performance of some natural or moral duty.
The law of nature commandeth every man to feed himself when he is hungry. The moral law confirms this, as it is a means to the observation of the sixth commandment, and especially on the sabbath day, so far as may fit us for the best sanctification of it. The law concerning the shewbread was but a ritual law, and that part of it which restrained the use of it when taken off from the holy table was of lightest concern, as it commanded it should be eaten by the priests only, and by them in the holy place. Where the life, or necessary relief, of men was concerned, the obligation of the ritual law ceased, and that was lawful, both for David and the high priest, which in ordinary cases had not been lawful. Works necessary either for the upholding of our lives, or fitting us for sabbath services, are lawful upon the sabbath day. Though the law concerning the sabbath be a moral law, yet it is jus positivum, not a law natural, but positive, and must be so interpreted as not to destroy the law natural, which commands men to feed themselves; nor yet to destroy itself. The scope and end of it is to be considered, which is the keeping of a day as a day of holy and religious rest. What labour is necessary to such keeping of it is also lawful. The time of the sabbath is not more holy than the shewbread; and as David in a case of necessity might make a common use of that holy bread, so the disciples in a case of like necessity might make use of a little of that holy time, in such necessary servile work as might fit them for their sabbath service. Thus it was lawful by the law of God, and if the Pharisees had not been ignorant, or had understood what they had read, they would never have disputed this, the instance of holy David might have satisfied. So that this little kind of labour could only be a breach of one of their bylaws, by which they pretended to expound the law of God, in which he showeth they had given a false interpretation.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. But he said unto them, Have yenot reador, as Mark (Mr2:25) has it, “Have ye never read.”
what David did when he was anhungered, and they that were with him (1Sa21:1-6)
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But he said unto them, have ye not read,…. If they had not read the Scriptures, they were very unfit persons either to be teachers, or censurers of others, and must have been very slothful and negligent; and if they had, they could not but have observed the case of David, which Christ produces in vindication of his disciples:
what David did when he was an hungred; which was the case of the disciples, and is therefore mentioned; it being also the circumstance which could, and did excuse what was done by David and his men: and the Jews themselves own, that in case of hunger the showbread might be eaten, by those that were not priests; not only that which was removed from the table, but that which was upon it; yea, even when there was none to put in its room l; and that David was in the utmost distress, and therefore desired it, and it was granted him on that account. They represent him as thus saying to the priest m,
“when he found there was none but showbread, give it me, that we may not die with hunger; , “for danger of life drives away the sabbath”;”
which perfectly agrees with our Lord’s argument, and justifies the apostles conduct: and this was not a single fact of David’s, but of others also;
and they that were with him; for though in 1Sa 21:1 he is said to be “alone, and no man with him”; yet this must be understood either comparatively, having but very few with him, and which were as none, considering his dignity; or thus, though none came with him to Ahimelech, pretending to the priest he had a secret affair of the king’s to transact; and therefore had left his servants in a certain place, and desires bread for himself and them; concerning whom the priest and he discourses, as may be seen in the place referred to: so that though no man was with him at the priest’s house, yet there were some with him, and who partook with him in eating of the showbread.
l R. David Kimchi in 1 Sam. xxi. 5. m Laniado Cli Jaker, fol. 227. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
What David did ( ). From the necessity of hunger. The first defence made by Christ appeals to the conduct of David (2Sa 21:6). David and those with him did “what was not lawful” ( ) precisely the charge made against the disciples ( in verse 2).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “But he said unto them,” (ho de eipen autois) “Then he responded to them,” to their erroneous complaint, accepting the challenge of the Pharisees, and defending His disciples.
2) “Have ye not read what David did,” (ouk anegnote ti epoiesen David) “Did you all never read what David did;” Have you all not both the spirit and letter of a Divine precedent example of this, as given concerning David, in your own book, the one you teach and claim to believe? 1Sa 21:1-6.
3) “When he was an hungered,” (hote epeinasen) “When he hungered,” “at a particular time when he hungered,” on a sabbath day.
4) “And they that were with him;” (kai hoi met’autou) “And those who were with him,” what they did, as a precedent for what the disciples, my followers are doing? on the sabbath, as provided in, not prohibited by the law, Deu 23:25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Mat 12:3
. Have you not read what David did? Christ employs five arguments to refute their calumny. First, he apologizes for his disciples by pleading the example of David, (1Sa 21:6.) While David was fleeing from the rage of Saul, he applied for provisions to the high-priest Ahimelech; and there being no ordinary food at hand, he succeeded in obtaining a part of the holy bread. If David’s necessity excused him, the same argument ought to be admitted in the case of others. Hence it follows, that the ceremonies of the Law are not violated where there is no infringement of godliness. (77) Now Christ takes for granted, that David was free from blame, because the Holy Spirit bestows commendation on the priest who allowed him to partake of the holy bread. When he says, that it was not lawful to eat that bread but for the priests alone, we must understand him to refer to the ordinary law:
they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy, (Exo 29:33.)
If David had attempted to do what was contrary to law, it would have been in vain for Christ to plead his example; for what had been prohibited for a particular end no necessity could make lawful.
(77) “ Quand on ne derogue rien a la reverence deue, a Dieu;” — “when nothing is taken away from the reverence that is due to God.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Have ye not read . . .?The question was an appeal to the Pharisees on the ground where they thought themselves strongest. For them it was an argument fortiori. Would they accuse David of sacrilege and Sabbath-breaking because he, in a case of urgent need, set at nought the two-fold law of ordinances? If they shrank from that, was it not inconsistent to condemn the disciples of Jesus for a far lighter transgression?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Read what David did Our Lord here is not arguing for a proper breaking of the law, but for its true construction. The mere formality of a ritual or strict letter of a positive precept is to yield to the demands of the true good, or the alternative consequence of essential evil. He shows this by an example of David, (1Sa 21:1-7,) who infringed the letter of the ceremonial law by obtaining from the priest and eating the showbread belonging to the tabernacle. To the necessity of preventing starvation the sanctity both of the showbread and of the Sabbath might yield. These institutions were both given in mercy, and it would be perverting their purpose to make them instruments of cruelty.
The showbread (in Hebrew, the bread of the presence, that is, of the divine presence) was placed first in the tabernacle and afterward in the temple of Solomon, on a table, in the Holy Place. As the temple was the house of God, so, symbolically, this was the bread of God. So the candlestick and other furnishings of the sacred place were emblems of the residence of Jehovah among his people.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3 . After the resurrection of Christ the Jewish Sabbath, which was laid upon the primitive Sabbath, was abolished, and “the Lord’s day,” (Rev 1:10,) or Christian Sabbath, was superimposed upon another day. Thus the Christian Sabbath, being the same as the decalogue Sabbath, or the creation Sabbath, is of perpetual obligation and universal observance.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But he said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered into the house of God, and they ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” ’
Jesus replied from a well known passage concerning David (1Sa 21:1-9). There David and his companions had, ‘because they were hungry’, 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 had been 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 his plea had been allowed even though ‘it was not lawful’. No one, not even the Scribes, had ever criticised David for this, or even did so now, because he was seen as having been God’s anointed. So one of Jesus’ points will be that as the Greater than David as ‘the Son of Man’, He has an even better right to determine Sabbath law. 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.
Another point that may have been in Jesus’ mind was that David had claimed the right because he was on the king’s business (even though in David’s case it was a lie). This, connected with Jesus statement that as Son of Man He was Lord of the Sabbath, may signify that He considered that His disciples were ‘on the King’s business’, that is, serving the Kingly Rule of Heaven. Jesus seems very much to have seen He and His men as parallel with David and his men.
Note here that David ‘went into the house of God’ (singular) while his men who ‘ate’ (plural) did not. Thus he was demonstrating some kind of right to enter the house of God. This may be intended to lead on to Jesus claim to be greater than the Temple.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 12:3-4. But he said unto them, &c. Concerning this transaction see the note on Mar 2:25-26. By the house of God is not meant the temple, for it was not then built; but the court of the tabernacle, which was at that time pitched at Nob, one of the priests’ cities in the tribe of Benjamin.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 12:3-4 . ] 1Sa 21
The spurious is unnecessary; is connected with . Comp. Thuc. i. 47. 2 : , and Poppo’s note.
] in this instance the tabernacle , which was then at Nob. Comp. Exo 23:19 . For the twelve pieces of shew-bread , on this occasion called , i.e. , loaves of the pile (1Ch 23:29 ; Exo 40:23 ), elsewhere named , , loaves of the presence (of God), 1Sa 21:7 , which, as a meat-offering, stood in the holy place, arranged in two rows upon a golden table, and were renewed every Sabbath, those of the previous week being given to the priests, see Lev 24:5 ff.; Lund, Jd. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 134 ff.; Ewald, Alterth. pp. 37, 153; Keil, Arch. I. p. 91.
] only appears to stand for , and retains its usual meaning of nisi. The language, however, assumes the tone of absolute negation: which it was not lawful for Him to eat, nor for those who were with Him, not lawful except for the priests alone. The neuter (see the critical remarks) indicates the category: what, i.e. which kind of food. See Matthiae, p. 987; Khner, II. 1, p. 55. Comp. note on Gal 1:7 ; Gal 2:16 ; Luk 4:26 f.; Dindorf in Steph. Thes. III. p. 190 C; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 195.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Ver. 3. But he said unto them ] They had not proved a breach of the Sabbath, neither could they. A breach it had been, had not the disciples been hungry, and he denies it not, but confutes their present cavils by clear syllogisms, one in the neck of another, such as they could not answer, nor abide, a and therefore sought to destroy him,Mat 12:14Mat 12:14 . See here the lawful use of logic in divinity, and mistake not St Jerome, Qui syllogizandi artem, applicatam Theologiae, comparat plagis Aegypti: understand him of that false sophistry, which the apostle calleth vain philosophy, Col. ii.
David did when he was an hungred ] Note here, that our Saviour excuseth David from his necessity, not from his dignity, which in point of sin God regards not; Potentes potenter torquebuntur. And yet how many are there who think, that when they have gotten an office, they may oppress at pleasure, swear by authority, drink and swill without control? But height of place ever adds two wings to sin, example and scandal. And ill accidents ever attend such great ones, as, being absolute in power, will be too resolute in will and dissolute in life. Queen Elizabeth said that princes owe a double duty to God: 1. As men. 2. As princes. Sedes prima et vita ima, is as unsuitable as for those that are clothed in scarlet to embrace the dunghill, Lam 4:5 .
a Manifestis syllogismis adversarios redarguit. Gualt.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] It appears from 1Sa 21:6 , that hot bread had been put in on the day of David’s arrival; which therefore, Lev 24:8 , was a sabbath. The example was thus doubly appropriate. Bengel maintains, on the commonly received interpretation of . Luk 6:1 , that 1Sa 21:1-15 was the lesson for the day. But the Jewish calendar of lessons cannot be shewn to have existed in the form which we now have, in the time of the Gospel history.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 12:3-8 . Christ’s defence . It is twofold. (1) He shields disciples by examples: David and the priests; to both the faultfinders would defer (Mat 12:3-5 ); (2) He indicates the principles involved in the examples (Mat 12:6-8 ). The case of David was apposite because ( a ) it was a case of eating, ( b ) it probably happened on Sabbath, ( c ) it concerned not only David but, as in the present instance, followers ; therefore , Mat 12:3 , carefully added. ( b ) does not form an element in the defence, but it helps to account for the reference to David’s conduct. In that view Jesus must have regarded the act of David as a Sabbatic incident, and that it was may not unnaturally be inferred from 1Sa 21:6 . Vide Lightfoot, ad loc. This was probably also the current opinion. The same remark applies to the attendants of David. From the history one might gather that David was really alone, and only pretended to have companions. But if, as is probable, it was usually assumed that he was accompanied, Jesus would be justified in proceeding on that assumption, whatever the fact was ( vide Schanz, ad loc ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Have ye not read. ? This question was asked by the Lord on six different occasions, and referred to seven different books of the O.T., and to ten distinct passages. See App-143.
what David did. Reference to 1Sa 21:6. App-117.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] It appears from 1Sa 21:6, that hot bread had been put in on the day of Davids arrival; which therefore, Lev 24:8, was a sabbath. The example was thus doubly appropriate. Bengel maintains, on the commonly received interpretation of . Luk 6:1, that 1Sa 21:1-15 was the lesson for the day. But the Jewish calendar of lessons cannot be shewn to have existed in the form which we now have, in the time of the Gospel history.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 12:3. , have ye not read) They had read the letter, without perceiving the spirit. Our Lord convicts them of error by the authority of the Old Testament.-, David) whose conduct, in this instance, you do not find fault with.- , when he was hungry) This is left, in 1Sa 21:3, to be understood by the reader.- , with him) See ibid. Mat 12:4.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
what David did
Jesus’ action Mat 12:1-7 is highly significant. “What David did” refers to the time of his rejection and persecution by Saul. 1Sa 21:6. Jesus here is not so much the rejected Saviour as the rejected King; hence the reference to David.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Have: Mat 12:5, Mat 19:4, Mat 21:16, Mat 22:31, Mar 12:10, Mar 12:26, Luk 6:3, Luk 10:26
what: 1Sa 21:3-6, Mar 2:25, Mar 2:26
Reciprocal: Lev 10:20 – he was content Lev 24:8 – General 1Sa 21:4 – hallowed bread 1Sa 21:6 – gave him Psa 119:139 – because Mat 9:13 – go
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
12:3
Two wrongs never make one right, but these Pharisees pretended to have so much respect for David and other of the fathers or ancestors, that it was fair to refer to him in this manner to expose their hypocrisy.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was a hungered, and they that were with him;
[David, and those that were with him.] For those words of Ahimelech are to be understood comparatively, “Wherefore art thou alone, and no man with thee?” (1Sa 21:1) that is, comparatively to that noble train wherewith thou wast wont to go attended, and which becomes the captain-general of Israel. David came to Nob, not as one that fled, but as one that came to inquire at the oracle concerning the event of war, unto which he pretended to come by the king’s command. Dissembling, therefore, that he hastened to the war, or to expedite some warlike design, he dissembles likewise that he sent his army to a certain place; and that he had turned aside thither to worship God, and to inquire of the vent; that he had brought but a very few of his most trusty servants along with him, for whom, being an hungered, he asketh a few loaves.
[When he was an hungered.] Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the ancients concerning this story in these words: “Our Rabbins, of blessed memory, say, that he gave him the show-bread, etc. The interpretation also of the clause, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel [Mat 12:6] is this; It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for us to eat these loaves taken from before the Lord when we are hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel (for the table sanctifieth); it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten.” And a little after; “There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life, beside idolatry, adultery, and murder.”
These words do excellently agree with the force of our Saviour’s arguments; but with the genuine sense of that clause, methinks they do not well agree. I should, under correction, render it otherwise, only prefacing this beforehand, that it is no improbable conjecture that David came to Nob either on the sabbath itself, or when the sabbath was but newly gone. “For the show-bread was not to be eaten unless for one day and one night; that is, on the sabbath and the going-out of the sabbath; David, therefore, came thither in the going-out of the sabbath.” And now I render David’s words thus; “Women have been kept from us these three days,” [so that there is no uncleanness with us from the touch of a menstruous woman], “and the vessels of the young men were holy, even in the common way,” [that is, while we travelled in the common manner and journey]; “therefore, much more are they holy as to their vessels this [sabbath] day.” And to this sense perhaps does that come: “But there was there one of the servants of Saul detained that day before the Lord;” [Mat 12:8]. The reverence of the sabbath had brought him to worship, and as yet had detained him there.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 12:3. Have ye not read what David did. All three Evangelists record this main argument against the Pharisees. The case of David (1Sa 21:1-6) was peculiarly in point. The Pharisees insisted that their mode of observing the Sabbath was needful, if a man would be a patriotic Jew and acceptable to God, but a model of Jewish piety had, according to the Scriptures, violated the law as they construed it.
Hungry, as His disciples had been.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
In these words our Saviour defends the action of his disciples in plucking the ears of corn in their necessity, by a double argument.
1. From David’s example: necessity freed him from fault in eating the consecrated bread, which none but the priest might lawfully eat; for in cases of necessity, a ceremonial precept must give place to a moral duty: works of mercy and necessity, for preserving our lives, and the better fitting us for sabbath-services, are certainly lawful on the sabbath-day.
2. From the example of the priests in the temple who upon the sabbath do break the outward rest of the day, by killing their sacrifices, and many other acts of bodily labour, which would be accounted sabbath-profanation, did not the service of the temple require and justify it.
Now, saith our Saviour, if the temple-service can justify labour on the sabbath, I am greater than the temple, and my authority and service can justify what my disciples have done.
From the whole we learn, That acts of mercy, which tend to fit us for works of piety, not only may, but ought to be, done on the sabbath-day.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ question with another, in common rabbinic style (cf. Mat 12:5; Mat 19:4; Mat 21:16; Mat 21:42; Mat 22:31). The record of the incident He cited is in 1Sa 21:1-6, and the law governing the use of consecrated bread is in Exo 25:30 and Lev 24:5-9. The house of God that David entered was the tabernacle that then stood at Nob. David and his men ate consecrated bread that only the priests had a right to eat.
The event to which Jesus referred may have occurred on a Sabbath day, though that is not certain (cf. 1Sa 21:5-6). That factor is inconsequential as is the fact that David ate after lying to the priests. Another inconsequential feature is that David’s men were very hungry, but Jesus’ disciples were evidently not. Jesus drew this illustration from a time in David’s life when Israel’s leadership was rejecting him. The Son of David was now experiencing similar rejection.
David ate even though it was unlawful for him to do so, yet the Old Testament did not condemn him for his act. Therefore the Pharisees should not condemn Jesus’ disciples for doing something Scripture did not condemn David’s men for doing. Jesus was arguing for His authority to override the Law more than their view of the Sabbath.
Jesus’ disciples were not breaking any Old Testament command concerning Sabbath observance. These laws aimed primarily at prohibiting regular work on the Sabbath. The Old Testament set aside a regulation in the Law for David and his men in the sense that it did not condemn them for what they did (cf. 2Ch 30:18-20). Who David was was the important factor in this concession. He was the Lord’s anointed who occupied a special place in Israel. If anyone had a right to do what David did, David did. Could not Jesus then set aside a Pharisaic law that had no basis in the Old Testament for Himself and His men? By arguing this way Jesus was claiming that He was at least as important as David was. The parallels between David and Jesus make Jesus’ veiled claim to being the Son of David obvious.