Leviticus 8:31

8:31 Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons, “Boil the meat at the entrance of the Meeting Tent, and there you are to eat it and the bread which is in the ordination offering basket, just as I have commanded, ¹  saying, ‘Aaron and his sons are to eat it,’

Leviticus 8:1

Ordination of the Priests

8:1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses: ² 

Leviticus 21:6

21:6 “‘They must be holy to their God, and they must not profane ³  the name of their God, because they are the ones who present the Lord’s gifts, ⁴  the food of their God. Therefore they must be holy. ⁵ 

Malachi 1:12

1:12 “But you are profaning it by saying that the table of the Lord is common and its offerings ⁶  despicable.

Matthew 12:4

12:4 how he entered the house of God and they ate ⁷  the sacred bread, ⁸  which was against the law ⁹  for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests? ¹⁰ 

Mark 2:26

2:26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest ¹¹  and ate the sacred bread, ¹²  which is against the law ¹³  for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” ¹⁴ 

Luke 6:4

6:4 how he entered the house of God, took ¹⁵  and ate the sacred bread, ¹⁶  which is not lawful ¹⁷  for any to eat but the priests alone, and ¹⁸  gave it to his companions?” ¹⁹ 

[8:31]  ¹ tn Several major ancient versions have the passive form of the verb (see BHS v. 31 note c; cf. Lev 8:35; 10:13). In that case we would translate, “just as I was commanded.”

[8:1]  ² sn Lev 8 is the fulfillment account of the ordination legislation recorded in Exod 29, and is directly connected to the command to ordain the tabernacle and priesthood in Exod 40:1-16 as well as the partial record of its fulfillment in Exod 40:17-38.

[21:6]  ³ sn Regarding “profane,” see the note on Lev 10:10 above.

[21:6]  ⁴ sn Regarding the Hebrew term for “gifts,” see the note on Lev 1:9 above (cf. also 3:11 and 16 in combination with the word for “food” that follows in the next phrase here).

[21:6]  ⁵ tc Smr and all early versions have the plural adjective “holy” rather than the MT singular noun “holiness.”

[1:12]  ⁶ tn Heb “fruit.” The following word “food” in the Hebrew text (אָכְלוֹ, ’okhlo) appears to be an explanatory gloss to clarify the meaning of the rare word נִיב (niv, “fruit”; see Isa 57:19 Qere; נוֹב, nov, “fruit,” in Kethib). Cf. ASV “the fruit thereof, even its food.” In this cultic context the reference is to the offerings on the altar.

[12:4]  ⁷ tc The Greek verb ἔφαγεν (efagen, “he ate”) is found in a majority of witnesses (Ì⁷⁰ C D L W Θ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt sy co) in place of ἔφαγον (efagon, “they ate”), the wording found in א B pc. ἔφαγεν is most likely motivated by the parallels in Mark and Luke (both of which have the singular).

[12:4]  ⁸ tn Grk “the bread of presentation.”

[12:4]  ⁹ sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was against the law is one of analogy: “If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.” Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along.

[12:4]  ¹⁰ sn See 1 Sam 21:1-6.

[2:26]  ¹¹ tn A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase (ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, ejpi Abiaqar ajrcierew") is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is “when Abiathar was high priest,” but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1-7. Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty. (1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: D W {271} it sy^s and a few others omit ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4; {A C Θ Π Σ Φ 074 ˹³ and many others} add τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως, giving the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading. (2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark’s source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point. (3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ἐπί + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” would be a viable option. (b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?” Here the final phrase is simply ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture. Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως: “when Abiathar was high priest.” It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete, and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision.

[2:26]  ¹² tn Grk “the bread of presentation.”

[2:26]  ¹³ sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was against the law is one of analogy: “If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.” Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along.

[2:26]  ¹⁴ sn See 1 Sam 21:1-6.

[6:4]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “and took.”

[6:4]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “the bread of presentation.”

[6:4]  ¹⁷ sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was not lawful is one of analogy: ‘If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.’ Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along.

[6:4]  ¹⁸ tc Most mss (א A D Θ Ë¹³ 33 Ï) read “also” here, but this looks like it is a reading made to agree with Mark 2:26. A better combination of witnesses (B L W Ψ Ë¹ lat sa) lacks the word “also.”

[6:4]  ¹⁹ tc The Western ms D adds here a full saying that reads, “On the same day, as he saw someone working on the Sabbath he said, ‘Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed, but if you do not know, you are cursed and a violator of the law.’” Though this is not well enough attested to be considered authentic, many commentators have debated whether this saying might go back to Jesus. Most reject it, though it does have wording that looks like Rom 2:25, 27 and Jas 2:11.