Matthew 12:4
Tuesday, 22 July 2025
how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Matthew 12:4
“How he entered into the house of God and the bread ‘the before-setting’ they ate, which not it is being permitted him to eat, nor those with him, if not the priests only?” (CG).
In the previous verse, Jesus questioned the Pharisees as to whether they remembered what Scripture said in regard to David. He continues with that now with the words, “How he entered into the house of God.”
This account was cited in the previous verse commentary. The tabernacle was located at Nob, where Ahimelek the priest was. David went into an area designated for the priests only. Also, the words of Jesus continue with, “and the bread ‘the before-setting’ they ate.”
The word prothesis, before-setting, is introduced. It is used at this time when referring to the consecrated bread set before the Lord in the tabernacle (and later the temple). However, the word is not limited to this. It is a word that can speak of a set purpose, such as that used in Romans 8:28 –
“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose [prothesis].”
In Matthew, the “before-setting” refers to the showbread set before the Lord. The Hebrew literally reads “bread, faces,” which signifies the bread of the Presence first mentioned in Exodus 25:30. Of this bread, Jesus continues with, “which not it is being permitted him to eat.”
This is stated explicitly in Leviticus 24 –
“Take the finest flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two-tenths of an ephah for each loaf. 6 Arrange them in two stacks, six in each stack, on the table of pure gold before the Lord. 7 By each stack put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be a food offering presented to the Lord. 8 This bread is to be set out before the Lord regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. 9 It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in the sanctuary area, because it is a most holy part of their perpetual share of the food offerings presented to the Lord.” Leviticus 24:5-9
The law says that the bread belonged to Aaron and his sons. It further defines where it could be eaten. There is no legal provision to allow the priest to give this bread to David, “nor those with him, if not the priests only?”
Understanding this, the Pharisees, who had used a precept from the law, had an account from Israel’s history presented to them which refers to violations of the law. And yet, the Bible remains silent on the event other than noting that it occurred.
In other words, there is a positive command in the ceremonial laws for the priests to eat the bread in the sanctuary, just as there is a positive command concerning the Pharisees’ accusation concerning the Sabbath. Despite these, there is an underlying allowance on display in the account of David when the needs of man must be met.
To condemn Jesus means that these men would have to, in turn, condemn David, the hero of God and a man after the Lord’s own heart. But how could they? The word concerning David contained no word of condemnation.
The two accounts, that of what David and his men did, and the example of Jesus with his disciples, are on a one-to-one footing. The Pharisees, therefore, no longer have a valid accusation to raise against Jesus.
Life application: There are times when things in our stream of existence will come into conflict with what is written. An example may be the establishment of a church in an area previously unevangelized. Suppose there are two people in the area who could be chosen to lead the church.
The first is a lady who heard the good news while away. She not only heard the gospel, but she also was there long enough to obtain sound biblical doctrine. She then returned to tell the people in her village about Jesus.
The second is a man who just learns about Jesus but who is willing to lead the people in their newly accepted faith. Wouldn’t the woman be a better candidate? Scripture provides thoughts on both –
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:11-13
“A bishop then must be ... not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” 1 Timothy 3:2 & 6, 7
Which would be the appropriate person to lead the church? It is a conundrum that must be thought through as both are technically biblically excluded from the role. However, if one must be chosen, the substance behind the matter and the intent behind the precepts need to be considered.
There is a need for the people to have proper leadership. At times, there will be instances, like this example, where decisions must be made that have to consider the spirit and intent of the word, even if there is a conflict with a precept stated in the word.
Glorious God, help us to always carefully consider Your word. May we be cautious to uphold it for what it is and then apply it to our walk before You. You have set forth guidelines for us to consider. May we carefully and cautiously do so at all times. Amen.
