But he said to them, Have you not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him;
Have.
Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
what.
1 Samuel 21:3-6 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present…
Mark 2:25,26 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? …
Have you not read
This phrase suggests familiarity with the Scriptures, as Jesus addresses the Pharisees, who were well-versed in the Law and the Prophets. It implies that the answer to their question is found in the Scriptures they claim to know. This rhetorical question challenges their interpretation and understanding of the law.
what David did
Jesus refers to an event from the life of King David, a revered figure in Jewish history. This reference to David is significant because it draws a parallel between David, a man after God's own heart, and Jesus Himself. It also highlights the importance of understanding the spirit of the law rather than a rigid adherence to its letter.
when he and his companions were hungry
This context is crucial as it emphasizes human need and compassion over strict legalism. The story Jesus refers to is found in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where David and his men ate the consecrated bread from the tabernacle because they were in need. This act was technically unlawful, yet it was permitted due to the circumstances, illustrating that mercy and necessity can take precedence over ritual law.
• Matthew sets the scene: Pharisees have charged Jesus’ disciples with breaking the Sabbath by plucking grain (Matthew 12:1–2).
• The answer comes directly from Christ, underscoring His divine authority to interpret Scripture (cf. Matthew 7:28-29; John 5:39-40).
• By replying rather than debating, Jesus models confident reliance on the written Word, showing that Scripture is the final court of appeal (Psalm 119:160; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
• A gentle yet pointed rebuke to religious leaders who prided themselves on biblical knowledge (John 5:38-39).
• Implies that the truth was always available—ignorance is due to neglect, not absence of revelation (Hosea 4:6).
• Encourages every believer to search the Scriptures personally, trusting their clarity and sufficiency (Acts 17:11).
• Jesus directs attention to 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where David, God’s anointed king-in-waiting, enters the tabernacle and eats the consecrated bread.
• By invoking David, Jesus appeals to a revered figure whose actions the Pharisees would hesitate to condemn (2 Samuel 7:8-9).
• The comparison elevates Jesus above David; if David’s act was acceptable, how much more the Son of David’s provision for His disciples (Matthew 22:41-45).
• Highlights genuine physical need—hunger, not frivolous desire—showing that God’s law was never intended to deny mercy (Micah 6:8; Hosea 6:6).
• Demonstrates that ritual regulations serve, rather than override, the higher moral priorities of preserving life and practicing compassion (Exodus 20:8-11 balanced with Deuteronomy 23:24-25).
• Establishes a pattern: human need rightly supersedes ceremonial restriction, a principle Jesus applies repeatedly (Matthew 12:11-12; Mark 3:4).
Matthew 12:3 uses David’s precedent to affirm that Scripture itself justifies acts of mercy on the Sabbath. Jesus, the authoritative interpreter, reminds us that God’s Word is clear, consistent, and always points to compassion over mere ritual.
(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 a 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?Verse 3. - But he said unto them, Have ye not read. Our Lord answers them by showing that the principle of the action of his disciples was sanctioned in the Scriptures to which they implicitly appealed. He calls their attention first (more Rabbinico; cf. on ver. 5) to the Prophets (i.e. the former prophets, according to the Hebrew division), as teaching by example that holy things are of secondary importance compared with the benefit of God's people; and afterwards to the Law, which implies that the sabbath itself is of secondary importance compared with work necessary for the sanctuary. He then affirms that in the present case there is One present who is even greater than the sanctuary. He goes on to say that their complaint, however, was really due to the lack, not so much of intellectual as of spiritual knowledge; they had no rapprochement with the God of love, or they would not have condemned those who, both because they were men and because they were disciples of the Son of man, stood above the sabbath. What David did, when he was a hungred, and they that were with him (1 Samuel 21:1-7).