1 Samuel 21:3

When the disciples had been hungry on the sabbath and had plucked some ears [of grain] and rubbed them in their hands, they violated the holy day by so preparing their food. Yet Christ excuses them and even became their accomplice in breaking the sabbath. … For from the Creator's Scripture and from the purpose of Christ there is derived a vivid precedent from David's example when he went into the temple on the sabbath and provided food by boldly breaking up the show bread. Even he remembered that this privilege (the dispensation from fasting) was allowed on the sabbath from the very beginning, from when the sabbath itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, he permitted it on only one occasion—the day before the sabbath—so that the previous day's provision of food might free them from fasting on the following sabbath. Therefore the Lord had good reason for pursuing the same principle in the "annulling" of the sabbath (since that is the word which people will use). He had good reason, too, for expressing the Creator's will, when he bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the sabbath. In short, might he have—right then and there—put an end not only to the sabbath but to the Creator himself if he had commanded his disciples to fast on the sabbath, as this would have been contrary to the intention of the Scripture and of the Creator's will. But is he alien from the Creator because he did not directly defend his disciples but excuses them? Or because he interposes human need, as if deprecating censure? Or because he maintains the honor of the sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work? Or because he puts David and his companions on a level with his own disciples in their fault and their validation? Or because he is pleased to endorse the Creator's indulgence? […]

People should be free with their faithful ministers. David was a man of great faith and courage, and yet now both failed him, and he fell thus foully through fear and cowardice, and both owing to the weakness of his faith. Had he trusted God aright, he would not have used such a sorry sinful shift as this for his own preservation.

), though they had no more in the house; but he trusted Providence. Persons of quality, though officers of the army, did not then wear their swords so constantly as now they do, else surely David would not have been without one. It was a wonder that Jonathan did not furnish him with his, as he had before done, ch. xviii.

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — leading-punctuation+unbalanced-parens

Now therefore what is under thine hand?.... Meaning, what food had he in his house? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand; to take with him, for him and his servants in such a place: or what there is present; or to be found (g) in the tabernacle; if not five loaves, two, or three, or four, or what food soever he had by him. (g) הנמצא "quicquid inveneris", V. L, "inventum", Montanus; "quicquid inventum fuerit", Tigurine version.

Travelling was then troublesome, when men generally carried their provisions with them in kind, having little money and no public houses, else David would not now have had to seek for bread. It seems David had known the seed of the righteous begging bread occasionally, but not constantly, Ps. xxxvii.