1 Samuel 21:4

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? […]

And the priest answering David, said to him, etc. Because "laos" in Greek means "people," "laic breads" signify common breads, that is, those not consecrated by offering, but common and prepared for ordinary use. Therefore, the sacred order of spiritual leaders answering Christ says: I …

And the priest answered David, and said, there is no common bread under mine hand,.... In the tabernacle, though he might have such in his own house; which was common for any man to eat of, even such as were not priests; but he had none there, and David was in haste to be gone because of Doeg, and could not stay till such was fetched: but there is hallowed bread; such as was devoted to sacred use.

Believers are spiritual priests, and the offerings of the Lord shall be their inheritance; they eat the bread of their God. He pleads that the bread is in a manner common, now that what was primarily the religious use of it is over; especially (as our margin reads it) where there is other bread ( hot,

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

There is, &c. - Here in the tabernacle: though doubtless he had other provisions is his house; but David was in great haste, and in fear of Doeg whom he saw, and knew and therefore would not stay 'till any thing could be fetched thence.