But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

But he said to them, Have you not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him;

"Have you never read," He replied, "what David did when he and his men were hungry?

But he said to them, Have you no knowledge of what David did when he had need of food, and those who were with him?

But he said to them, 'Have you not read what David did, when he and his companions were hungry;

"Haven't you read," replied Jesus, "what David did, when he and his companions were hungry –

Have you not read what David did? Christ employs five arguments to refute their calumny. First, he apologizes for his disciples by pleading the example of David, (1 Samuel 21:6.) While David was fleeing from the rage of Saul, he applied for provisions to the high-priest Ahimelech; and there being no ordinary food at hand, he succeeded in obtaining a part of the holy bread. If David's necessity excused him, the same argument ought to be admitted in the case of others. Hence it follows, that the ceremonies of the Law are not violated where there is no infringement of godliness. Now Christ takes for granted, that David was free from blame, because the Holy Spirit bestows commendation on the priest who allowed him to partake of the holy bread. When he says, that it was not lawful to eat that bread but for the priests alone, we must understand him to refer to the ordinary law: they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy, (Exodus 29:33.) If David had attempted to do what was contrary to law, it would have been in vain for Christ to plead his example; for what had been prohibited for a particular end no necessity could make lawful.

But he said unto them - To vindicate his disciples, he referred them to a similar case, recorded in the Old Testament, and therefore one with which they ought to have been acquainted. This was the case of David. The law commanded that twelve loaves of bread should be laid on the table in the holy place in the tabernacle, to remain a week, and then to be eaten by the "priests only." Their place was then supplied by fresh "bread." This was called the "showbread," Leviticus 24:5-9. David, fleeing before Saul, weary and hungry, had come to Ahimelech the priest; had found only this bread; had asked it of him, and had eaten it contrary to the "letter" of the law, 1-Samuel 21:1-7. David, among the Jews, had high authority. This act had passed uncondemned. It proved that in "cases of necessity the laws did not bind a man" - a principle which all laws admit. So the "necessity" of the disciples justified them in doing on the Sabbath what would have been otherwise unlawful.

Have ye not read what David did - The original history is in 1-Samuel 21:1-6.
When he was an hungered - Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the ancients concerning this story in these words: "Our rabbins of blessed memory say, that he gave him the shew-bread, etc. The interpretation also of the clause, Yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel, is this: It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for us to eat These Loaves, taken from before the Lord, when we are hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for the table sanctifieth), it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten. And a little after, There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life, beside idolatry, adultery, and murder. That is, a man, according to them, should do any thing but these in order to preserve life." See Lightfoot.
He entered into the house of God - Viz. the house of Ahimelech the priest, who dwelt at Nob, with whom the tabernacle then was, in which the Divine presence was manifested.
And did eat the shew - bread - Τους αρτους της προθεσεως - in Hebrew, לחם פנים lechem panim - bread of the presence, or faces, because this bread was to be set continually, לפני יהוה lipney Yehovah, before the face of Jehovah. See the notes on Exodus 25:23, Exodus 25:30.
"Since part of the frankincense put in the bread was to be burnt on the altar for a memorial, Leviticus 24:7, and since Aaron and his sons were to eat it in the holy place, it is evident that this bread typified Christ, first presented as a sacrifice to, or in the presence of, Jehovah, and then becoming spiritual food to such as, in and through him, are spiritual priests to God. See Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:6; also 1-Peter 2:5." Parkhurst.

But he said unto them, have ye not read,.... If they had not read the Scriptures, they were very unfit persons either to be teachers, or censurers of others, and must have been very slothful and negligent; and if they had, they could not but have observed the case of David, which Christ produces in vindication of his disciples:
what David did when he was an hungred; which was the case of the disciples, and is therefore mentioned; it being also the circumstance which could, and did excuse what was done by David and his men: and the Jews themselves own, that in case of hunger the showbread might be eaten, by those that were not priests; not only that which was removed from the table, but that which was upon it; yea, even when there was none to put in its room (l); and that David was in the utmost distress, and therefore desired it, and it was granted him on that account. They represent him as thus saying to the priest (m),
"when he found there was none but showbread, give it me, that we may not die with hunger; , "for danger of life drives away the sabbath";''
which perfectly agrees with our Lord's argument, and justifies the apostles conduct: and this was not a single fact of David's, but of others also;
and they that were with him; for though in 1-Samuel 21:1 he is said to be "alone, and no man with him"; yet this must be understood either comparatively, having but very few with him, and which were as none, considering his dignity; or thus, though none came with him to Ahimelech, pretending to the priest he had a secret affair of the king's to transact; and therefore had left his servants in a certain place, and desires bread for himself and them; concerning whom the priest and he discourses, as may be seen in the place referred to: so that though no man was with him at the priest's house, yet there were some with him, and who partook with him in eating of the showbread.
(l) R. David Kimchi in 1 Sam. xxi. 5. (m) Laniado Cli Jaker, fol. 227. 2.

But he said unto them, Have ye not read--or, as Mark (Mark 2:25) has it, "Have ye never read."
what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him-- (1-Samuel 21:1-6)

Have ye not read. The Lord answers them by citing the case of David, who, under necessity, took, ate, and gave to his followers the shew bread which it was lawful for priests only to eat. Necessity rose higher than ceremonial. See 1-Samuel 21:1-6.

Have ye not read what David did - And necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance.