My brother showed me something that, without a proper answer, bothers me.

In 1 Sam 21, David lied concerning two things:

#1: he was on a mission for the king

#2: he had 'men' or companions following him. (vs 2)

Now, in Matthew 12:3, Jesus says in regards to David, "he and his companions" ...

You'd think Jesus would know the Scriptures.. ??

So, to say it another way, David really did not have companions with him, but Jesus said he did.

Would you mind sharing the Scriptures you are referring to in 1 Samuel?

So, to say it another way, David really did not have companions with him, but Jesus said he did.then who are the young men?

1Sa 21:4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

My brother showed me something that, without a proper answer, bothers me.

In 1 Sam 21, David lied concerning two things:

#1: he was on a mission for the king

#2: he had 'men' or companions following him. (vs 2)

Now, in Matthew 12:3, Jesus says in regards to David, "he and his companions" ...

You'd think Jesus would know the Scriptures.. ??

So, to say it another way, David really did not have companions with him, but Jesus said he did.MarleVVLL,

The first thing to do when trying to understand a scripture is simply to read it carefully... in context. And I also suggest that you use a translation that is clear to you. Then ask some practical questions.

I do see your concern here. Just FYI, I read Jesus' response in each of the synoptic gospels--same response. Then I read some Crefs in Psalms and looked for something in 1 Chronicles, but it basically starts telling the story of David from when he becomes king there.

I see a couple of possibilities:
1) There may have been some companions with David. Remember that after David fled from Saul that soon there were 600 men following him. So it would not be surprising if at least a handful were with him.

2) Since David lied in saying that he was on an urgent mission from Saul, it would not be surprising that he lied when the priest asked him where his men were if he was on a mission. The priest may very likely have seen through the subterfuge. But since David answered that he needed bread for himself and his men, and the priest gave him enough bread for such, it makes sense that Jesus dealt with it as such since the point would be (by Jesus) that David was given enough bread for himself and some men. Hence Jesus is saying that David got bread not only for himself but for his men (as far as the priest knew).

Personally, I say it must be the 2nd possibility above. David seems to have been very afraid. later in the next chapter he actually pretended to be insane before a king of the Philistines, and we see no indication of men with him there either, which seems to be right after the events of chapter 21.

Jesus is saying that the priest gave David bread not only for himself, but for the men supposedly with him. David had said that he had sent them on ahead to meet him some place. Jesus is simply telling things from the perspective of the priest, who gave up the bread which was not to be eaten by any but descendants of Aaron (IOW, those of the Levitical priesthood). (See Leviticus 24:4-9.) The point was that the priest knew better than to let David and his men eat that bread. It was a violation of the law.

As you can see, I checked immediate context, other possible OT contexts (Psalms and Leviticus), and the NT context and parallel passages.

I think this is much to do about nothing.

Take care,

BD

Hey Baddog,

I appreciate your post.

I'll do further research on this passage. Although your latter suggestion makes the most sense, it seems to work around the problem still at hand; as Jesus referred to 1 Sam 21 in a narrative form and suggested that David indeed had men with him. He did not say and clarify whose perspective He was speaking from.

Thanks again

David asked for 5 loaves of bread.
The priest was the one who made reference to the young men, when as there is no record of David needing to refer to them, indicating that they were right there with David in the priests own sight.

David also makes references to the 'vessels' of the young men wherein the bread was to be carried.

David had young men right there with him as Jesus said.

Jesus would not refer to a totally irrelevant false perspective from a misguided priest.
The point being that practical loving your neighbor as in providing real necessities overrides procedural laws of service.
Jesus is using that situation of the bread being given to David and those with him to highlight this. He is not saying something that in reality is not true in making his point.

The priests reference to David having no man with him would then need to be understood since we know there were in fact young men with David as Jesus and the priest verified. The "no man with thee" must therefore mean no man of appropriate standing that one would expect to be accompanying David, a recognized official of government, so to speak. These were young men very obviously of no official calibre whose attire was also probably very ungovernment-like.

His lie concerning the kings men meeting him at a designated place somewhere up ahead, was used to satisfy the priests concerned curiosity.

Actually, David referred to his men in verse 2 of the 21st chapter of Samuel. The priest then referred back to his men, which, when read, it appears that he was actually flying solo, hense this difficult situation.

No. In v1 Ahimelech asked why David was alone.
In v2 David said he sent his men elsewhere 'because of the kings commandment of secrecy'.
The food was not just for David but also his men, hence the reference to the men in v4 and v5.
In v5 you'll find 'these three days' and 'since I came out', indicating David alone came out of the caves and the men were three days hungered in the caves, and it's not likely women are coming to the caves.

Matthews reference to men with David is just that, men fighting along side (with) David as opposed to with Saul.

He did not have even a handful of men (v1-2). He didn't lie and couldn't have since Ahimelech saw with his own eyes David was alone, and said so.
David did not ask for bread for himself and his men specifically, he just asked for all bread present which would easily feed more than himself -Ahimelech knowing David had men.

1 Sam. 21
1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.
3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

Verse 2 above is understood to mean that David says the king had predetermined a secret place up ahead where David was to meet with the kings servants: a rendezvous point: apparently a covert operation. This is not a reference to the young men that were with him, this is a reiteration of what he says the king had said.
The bread was to meet the needs of their present situation, David and the young men's hunger so that they could get to their destination. The bread was not required as provision for the kings servants who he said he was to rendezvous with.

It was all a lie! David was explaining why he was alone. His men were elsewhere.
Were there men there that Ahimelech could not see? What you have said makes no sense at all. If it did, this thread wouldn't be here.

In v5 you'll find 'these three days' and 'since I came out', indicating David alone came out of the caves and the men were three days hungered in the caves, and it's not likely women are coming to the caves.



Please communicate more clearly. Are you saying the young men were three days journey distant where David was to take the bread to feed them?
Or that they had all left the caves together and David was to meet the young men somewhere and share the bread?
Where do you get the caves thing from? I do not see it in the text.



It was all a lie! David was explaining why he was alone. His men were elsewhere.
Were there men there that Ahimelech could not see? What you have said makes no sense at all. If it did, this thread wouldn't be here.


I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Was it also a lie that young men were with him? And why would not this thread be here? This is confusing.

1 Sam. 21
1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.
3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.


The red in verse 2 has the word "I" in bold font in the three places it is used in that verse. David is saying this is what the king said to him, (which of course we know is a lie)
I am taking all 3 uses of the word "I" as what the king had supposedly said.
I understand that you are taking the third "I" (underlined) to be David himself making reference to his young men as his servants.

Mt. 12:
3 But he said unto them, Have ye 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 was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mk. 2:
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
Lk. 6:
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

I am taking the 6 places in the NT (underlined above) to literally mean that the young men were right there with him.

I understand that you must be taking what is underlined above to mean they were 'with him' only in the sense of being on the same mission together, howbeit not actually there in Abiathar's presence as David spoke to him.

I have honestly tried to read the passage above in 1 Sam 21 through your eyes as I understand you see it according to what I understand you have written.

I don't think you have done the same with what I have written because you say it makes no sense at all when it is very practical and sensible .

Take 1 Sam. 21:1-5 and quote each verse in full. After each quoted verse explain briefly the way you understand that verse.

And then I will do the same.

Our assumptions or reasons for coming to our interpretations should reveal any error either of us may have. But we have to be willing to be upfront in revealing our reasons and assumptions.

We could both be wrong, one of us could be right and the other wrong, or we could both be partly wrong and partly right, (which is more likely the case) but it is impossible for us to both be right.