Wednesday, July 7, 2021

Phillip Sigal on Matthew 12:3-4

  

But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? (Matt 12:3-4)

 

Commenting on this passage, Phillip Sigal wrote the following:

 

Jesus asks the Pharisees whether they do not recall the action of David (1 Sam 21:2-7), when he and his followers were hungry and they ate are the artous tēs protheseōs. Matthew 12:4 refers to these as loaves meant only for priests. The priest in the David episode does not indicate priests may eat the bread that he gives to David. He merely pleads that the only bread available is “holy bread” (21:5). Actually, this holy bread was to be offered upon the altar (Lev 6:16). At 1 Sam 21:7 the author informs us that the priest gave to David this holy bread, for otherwise the only bread there was the leḥem happanim, which is changed weekly but which cannot be removed until that time. If the episode occurred on the Sabbath, the priest could have baked new gridle-cakes to offer upon the altar (m. Men. 11:3), but he could not have baked new leḥem happanim. If the episode did not occur on the Sabbath, the leḥem hapannim was not even scheduled for change. In either case, he could not have given the leḥem happanim to David. But in either case he was able to give him the holy food that the priest was to burn on the altar and to bake substitute cakes.

 

Despite Schlatter, the thrust of Jesus’ argument is not merely that moral factors like precedence over the ceremonial. It is that David ate holy bread meant only to be offered on the altar. He violated the sanctity of the altar itself. Jesus is thus offering a heqqēsh, the hermeneutical rule of juxtaposition of two persons and situations. David infringed what is qodesh, holy, the priests’ bread that constitute the daily meal offering, and the disciples are infringing upon what is qodesh, the Sabbath. As a matter of fact, the case of David is more serious, for there it is clearly holy bread destined to be a holocaust that he infringes. In the case of the disciples, it is not at all clear that their activity is forbidden. Thus Matt 12:3-4 constitute a combined heqqēsh and an implied qal waḥomer. After the heqqēsh one must understand Jesus as arguing that, if David could do so in a case of definite infringement, the disciples may certainly do so in a case of doubtful infringement.