Two views of why Jesus mentioned David’s eating of the bread of the Presence:
Jesus refers to David, whose actions are apparently approved by God (1 Samuel 6:19; 2 Samuel 6:7; 1 Samuel 21:3–6) in order to show that it is not only allowed, but can even be necessary to violate the ceremonial law to preserve oneself and others. After all, David and his followers were not allowed to enter the temple to eat of the bread of the Presence. Note, however, that in Matthew 12:4, Jesus shifts from the plural to the singular, implying that David was allowed to do what he did not merely because he and his men were hungry, but because he was in danger of perishing from hunger, while he, as the Lord’s anointed, was destined to start reigning soon. As God’s anointed, David could not neglect his companions, just as Jesus may not neglect his apostles when they are hungry. Jesus thus accepts the Pharisees’ stance, either permanently or only in this case (Matthew 23:2), arguing that the Pharisees’ insistence on upholding the ceremonial law is correct, but they needed to see that the ceremonial law’s commands are given for specific purposes, so that this law may be broken when necessary in the interest of the Lord’s cause. In fact, the whole ceremonial law was abolished once it was no longer needed. Jesus also assumed that the devout know when they need to deviate from the ceremonial law.
Jesus uses the example of David (and his companions) as a parallel to himself (and his disciples). David, the Lord’s anointed, fled from Saul on the Sabbath and presented himself as if he were on a mission of service for the king and the people. In that context, the priest gave to David what was ordinarily reserved only for priests, because David’s role as God’s chosen king was of decisive importance. The point is not that hunger alone suddenly suspended the law, nor that the rule of love for the neighbour made the bread of the Presence available, but that it was the recognition of God’s anointed and his unique calling that justified this exceptional act. David’s men shared in that privilege only because they were bound to him as his followers, not simply because they were hungry. In the same way, Jesus’ disciples share in privileges that belong to him as the Son of Man, the anointed one who has authority even over the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28).
Interpretation 1:
Jesus here refers to David, whose actions had been justified by everyone on account of God’s apparent approval thereof (see 1 Samuel 6:19; 2 Samuel 6:7; 1 Samuel 21:3–6) in order to show that it is not only permissible, but can even be necessary to violate the ceremonial law for the sake of preserving oneself and others. After all, David and his followers were not allowed to enter the temple to eat of the bread of the Presence. It is noteworthy, however, that here in Matthew 12:4, Jesus transitions from the plural to the singular, amplifying that David was permitted to do what he did not merely because he and his men were hungry, but because he was in danger of perishing from hunger, while he, as the Lord’s anointed, was destined to start reigning soon.
As God’s anointed, David could not neglect his companions, just as Jesus could not neglect his apostles when they were hungry. Jesus therefore accepts the standpoint of the Pharisees, either permanently or in this particular instance only (see Matthew 23:2). The rationale behind this is as follows: you Pharisees, who insist on upholding the ceremonial law, are indeed correct, but you must understand that the ceremonial law in itself gives arbitrary commands with a particular purpose in view, and that this law may and can be broken when it is desirable in the interest of the Lord’s cause. In fact, the entire ceremonial law was abolished once it was no longer necessary. Jesus also assumes that devout people are able to discern when it is necessary to deviate from the ceremonial law.1
It was hunger (the law of necessity, for the preservation of life, see Matthew 12:10–11) which, both in the case of David and in the case of the disciples, justified the transgression of the ceremonial law.2
Interpretation 2:
Jesus draws on the example of David (and his companions) as a parallel to himself (and his disciples). David, the anointed of the Lord, fled from Saul on the Sabbath and presented himself as if he were on a mission of service for the king and the people. In that context, the priest extended to David what was ordinarily reserved only for priests, because David’s role as God’s chosen king was of decisive importance. The point here is not that hunger alone suddenly suspended the law, nor that the general rule of love for the neighbour casually set aside the law regarding the bread of the Presence, but rather that it was the recognition of God’s anointed and his unique calling that justified this exceptional act. David’s men shared in that privilege only because they were bound to him as his followers, not simply because they were hungry. In the same way, Jesus’ disciples share in privileges that belong to him as the Son of Man, the anointed one who has authority even over the Sabbath (see Mark 2:23–28).3
3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: