Matthew 12:3-4

Matthew 12:3-4

[3] But  he said  unto them,  not  read  what  David  did,  when  he  was an hungred,  and  they  that were with him;  [4] How  he entered into  the house  of God,  and  did eat  the shewbread,  which  not  lawful  for him  to eat,  neither for  them which  were with him,  only  for the priests? 

What does Matthew 12:3-4 Mean?

Contextual Meaning

Jesus responded to the Pharisees" question with another, in common rabbinic style (cf. Matthew 12:5; Matthew 19:4; Matthew 21:16; Matthew 21:42; Matthew 22:31). The record of the incident He cited is in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, and the law governing the use of consecrated bread is in Exodus 25:30 and Leviticus 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. 1 Samuel 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 Song of Solomon , 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. 2 Chronicles 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.