The Fallible Study Bible

The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible

Luke6:1–5

The Lord of the Sabbath

✦ Public-domain source — quoted & attributed⚙ AI synthesis — generated, verify

Luke 6:1–5 — The Lord of the Sabbath. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.

1

One Sabbath Jesus was passing through the grainfields, and His disciples began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat them.

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Greek — tap a word ↓

en sabbatō de Egeneto auton diaporeuesthai dia sporimōn kai autou hoi mathētai etillon tous stachyas psōchontes tais chersin kai ēsthion

Word by word20 · parsed
ἐνenG1722
√ ἐν — "in," at, (up-)on, by, etcPreposition
σαββάτῳsabbatō[One] SabbathG4521
√ σάββατον — the Sabbath (iNounDative Neuter Singular
sabbaton: the Sabbath Dative of time, "on a sabbath." The Greek here is plain; the famous difficulty belongs to a longer reading, "on the second-first sabbath," which BSB does not print. Ellicott, Benson, Barnes, Gill, Cambridge and Pulpit all attempt it and none agree; Cambridge notes the word is absent from the oldest witnesses and Pulpit that Tregelles and Meyer drop it outright. The honest position is that the exact date is unrecoverable and the season is not: the grain is ripe enough to rub, so spring or early summer.
δὲdeG1161
√ δέ — but, and, etcConjunction
ἘγένετοEgenetoG1096
√ γίνομαι — to cause to be ("gen"-erate), iVerbAorist Indicative Middle3rd Person Singular
ginomai: to come to be, happen The aorist middle in the impersonal "and it came to pass" construction, a Semitism carried into Greek through the Septuagint. Luke uses it to frame the episode as a piece of sacred history rather than an anecdote.
αὐτὸνauton[Jesus]G846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounAccusative Masculine 3rd Person Singular
διαπορεύεσθαιdiaporeuesthaiwas passingG1279
√ διαπορεύομαι — to travel throughVerbPresent Infinitive Middle or Passive
diaporeuomai: to travel through A rare compound, found by the Verifier in only five verses (here, Luke 13:22, Luke 18:36, Acts 16:4, Romans 15:24). In every other instance it describes purposeful journeying toward a destination. The disciples are not foraging in a field; they are on the road with their Master, and the food is taken in passing.
διὰdiathroughG1223
√ διά — through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional)Preposition
σπορίμωνsporimōn[the] grainfieldsG4702
√ σπόριμος — sown, iAdjectiveGenitive Neuter Plural
καὶkaiandG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
αὐτοῦautouHisG846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounGenitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular
οἱhoiG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Masculine Plural
μαθηταὶmathētaidisciplesG3101
√ μαθητής — a learner, iNounNominative Masculine Plural
ἔτιλλονetillonbegan to pickG5089
√ τίλλω — to pull offVerbImperfect Indicative Active3rd Person Plural
tillo: to pull off Imperfect, durative. The act itself was expressly lawful: Deuteronomy 23:25 permits a man to pluck ears with his hand in his neighbour's standing grain. Barnes is emphatic that the objection is not to the taking but to the day, and that is the hinge of the whole exchange.
τοὺςtoustheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleAccusative Masculine Plural
στάχυαςstachyasheads of grainG4719
√ στάχυς — a head of grain (as standing out from the stalk)NounAccusative Masculine Plural
stachys: a head of grain Rare, four verses in all. Its other memorable appearance is Mark 4:28, where the earth bears fruit of itself, blade then head then full grain in the head. The same word that names the kingdom's quiet growth here names the handful that provokes the accusation.
ψώχοντεςpsōchontesrub [them]G5597
√ ψώχω — to triturate, iVerbPresent Participle ActiveNominative Masculine Plural
psocho: to rub, triturate Luke alone records it. The Mishnaic ruling Gill cites allowed grain rubbed on the eve of the Sabbath to be winnowed by hand the next day; the disciples plucked, rubbed and blew the chaff all on the day itself. Luke's extra verb is therefore not decoration but the exact point of legal exposure.
ταῖςtaisin [their]G3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleDative Feminine Plural
χερσίνchersinhandsG5495
√ χείρ — the hand (literally or figuratively (power)NounDative Feminine Plural
καὶkaiandG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
ἤσθιονēsthioneat [them]G2068
√ ἐσθίω — used only in certain tenses, the rest being supplied by G5315 (φάγω)VerbImperfect Indicative Active3rd Person Plural
esthio: to eat Imperfect again, paired with the plucking. Hunger, not defiance, is the stated motive, and Matthew's parallel says so outright. Henry reads the whole scene as a work of necessity, and warns in the same breath that necessity is not a licence.
2

But some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Greek — tap a word ↓

de tines tōn Pharisaiōn eipan Ti poieite ho ouk exestin tois sabbasin

Word by word12 · parsed
δὲdeButG1161
√ δέ — but, and, etcConjunction
τινὲςtinessomeG5100
√ τὶς — some or any person or objectInterrogative / Indefinite PronounNominative Masculine Plural
tis: some, certain ones Indefinite: Luke does not name them or number them. Cambridge suggests they may be among the watchers who dogged Jesus' steps as the ministry advanced; Pulpit goes further and guesses a commission from Jerusalem. Both are inferences, and the text supports neither beyond "some."
τῶνtōnof theG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleGenitive Masculine Plural
ΦαρισαίωνPharisaiōnPhariseesG5330
√ Φαρισαῖος — a separatist, iNounGenitive Masculine Plural
Pharisaios: a Pharisee, a separatist The name itself means the separated. Cambridge's sharpest charge is that while they policed these trivialities they omitted the weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy and faith. The irony the passage will exploit is that the separated ones are about to be taught from their own Scriptures by the one they are separating from.
εἶπανeipanaskedG2036
√ ἔπω — to speak or say (by word or writing)VerbAorist Indicative Active3rd Person Plural
ΤίTiWhyG5101
√ τίς — an interrogative pronoun, who, which or what (in direct or indirect questions)Interrogative / Indefinite PronounAccusative Neuter Singular
ποιεῖτεpoieiteare you doingG4160
√ ποιέω — to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct)VerbPresent Indicative Active2nd Person Plural
poieo: to make, to do Present indicative, the ordinary verb of action. Light in itself; the weight lies on what follows.
ὃhowhatG3739
√ ὅς — the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, thatPersonal / Relative PronounNominative Neuter Singular
οὐκoukvvvG3756
√ οὐ — the absolute negative (compare G3361 (μή)) adverbAdverb
ἔξεστινexestinis unlawfulG1832
√ ἔξεστι — so also neuter present participle of the same (with or without some form of G1510 (εἰμί) expressed)VerbPresent Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
exesti: it is permitted The pivot word of the unit. It occurs twice more in Jesus' answer at v. 4, and the Verifier finds it clustered through every Sabbath controversy in the Gospels (Luke 6:9, Luke 14:3, Mark 3:4, Matthew 12:10, John 5:10). The argument of v. 3 to v. 4 will take the Pharisees' own word and show them a case in their own Scriptures where the not-permitted was done and no blame attached.
τοῖςtois[on] theG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleDative Neuter Plural
σάββασινsabbasinSabbathG4521
√ σάββατον — the Sabbath (iNounDative Neuter Plural
sabbaton: the Sabbath Named here for the third time in two verses. The day, not the deed, is the whole of the accusation; strip the Sabbath out and Deuteronomy 23:25 would leave the disciples blameless.
3

Jesus replied, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Greek — tap a word ↓

Kai ho Iēsous apokritheis eipen pros autous Oude anegnōte touto ho Dauid epoiēsen hopote autos kai hoi ontes met’ autou epeinasen

Word by word21 · parsed
ΚαὶKaiG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
ὁhoG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Masculine Singular
ἸησοῦςIēsousJesusG2424
√ Ἰησοῦς — Jesus (iNounNominative Masculine Singular
ἀποκριθεὶςapokritheisrepliedG611
√ ἀποκρίνομαι — to conclude for oneself, iVerbAorist Participle PassiveNominative Masculine Singular
apokrinomai: to answer, to conclude for oneself The verb of formal reply. Gill notes that the accusation was brought to Jesus precisely to see what he would say, and that he took up the disciples' cause at once rather than conceding the charge and pleading mercy.
εἶπενeipen. . .G2036
√ ἔπω — to speak or say (by word or writing)VerbAorist Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
πρὸςpros. . .G4314
√ πρός — a preposition of directionPreposition
αὐτοὺςautous. . .G846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounAccusative Masculine 3rd Person Plural
ΟὐδὲOudevvvG3761
√ οὐδέ — not however, iAdverb
ἀνέγνωτεanegnōteHave you not readG314
√ ἀναγινώσκω — to know again, iVerbAorist Indicative Active2nd Person Plural
anaginosko: to read, to know again Jesus does not answer a halakhic ruling with a halakhic ruling. He answers it with a narrative and puts the burden of the reading on his accusers. The appeal is to Scripture they hold, which is why every thread below that pairs this verse with 1 Samuel 21 is an appeal to a story, not a quotation of words.
τοῦτοtoutovvvG3778
√ οὗτος — the he (she or it), iDemonstrative PronounAccusative Neuter Singular
ὃhowhatG3739
√ ὅς — the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, thatPersonal / Relative PronounAccusative Neuter Singular
ΔαυὶδDauidDavidG1138
√ Δαβίδ — Dabid (iNounNominative Masculine Singular
David: the beloved, Israel's king The name is the whole argument. Cambridge calls him their favourite saint and hero; Pulpit calls him their own loved David. The precedent is chosen because it cannot be dismissed: the man who did this is the man from whose line Messiah comes, and the one citing it is his greater son.
ἐποίησενepoiēsendidG4160
√ ποιέω — to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct)VerbAorist Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
poieo: to make, to do The same verb the Pharisees used in v. 2 of the disciples, now turned on David. "Why are you doing" is answered with "what David did." The repetition is deliberate and is lost if the two are translated differently.
ὁπότεhopotewhenG3753
√ ὅτε — at which (thing) too, iConjunction
αὐτὸςautosheG846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounNominative Masculine 3rd Person Singular
καὶkaiandG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
οἱhoihis companionsG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Masculine Plural
ὄντεςontes. . .G1510
√ εἰμί — I exist (used only when emphatic)VerbPresent Participle ActiveNominative Masculine Plural
μετ’met’. . .G3326
√ μετά — properly, denoting accompanimentPreposition
αὐτοῦautou. . .G846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounGenitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular
ἐπείνασενepeinasenwere hungryG3983
√ πεινάω — "pine")VerbAorist Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
peinao: to be hungry, to pine The stated ground. Luke's account of the disciples in v. 1 never says they were hungry; Matthew's parallel does. Jesus supplies the missing premise from the David story instead, which is a sharper move: the reader is made to see the disciples' case through David's.
4

He entered the house of God, took the consecrated bread and gave it to his companions, and ate what is lawful only for the priests to eat.”

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Greek — tap a word ↓

hōs eisēlthen eis ton oikon tou Theou kai labōn tous artous tēs protheseōs kai edōken tois met’ autou ephagen hous ouk exestin ei mē monous tous hiereis phagein

Word by word28 · parsed
ὡςhōsG5613
√ ὡς — which how, iAdverb
εἰσῆλθενeisēlthenHe enteredG1525
√ εἰσέρχομαι — to enter (literally or figuratively)VerbAorist Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
εἰςeis. . .G1519
√ εἰς — to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etcPreposition
τὸνtontheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleAccusative Masculine Singular
οἶκονoikonhouseG3624
√ οἶκος — a dwelling (more or less extensive, literal or figurative)NounAccusative Masculine Singular
oikos: a dwelling, a house The sanctuary at Nob, 1 Samuel 21. Pulpit observes that David must also have broken the sabbath-day journey rule to get there, so the precedent is doubly to the point.
τοῦtouG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleGenitive Masculine Singular
ΘεοῦTheouof GodG2316
√ θεός — figuratively, a magistrateNounGenitive Masculine Singular
καὶkaiG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
λαβὼνlabōntookG2983
√ λαμβάνω — while G138 (αἱρέομαι) is more violent, to seize or remove))VerbAorist Participle ActiveNominative Masculine Singular
τοὺςtoustheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleAccusative Masculine Plural
ἄρτουςartousconsecrated breadG740
√ ἄρτος — bread (as raised) or a loafNounAccusative Masculine Plural
artos: bread, a loaf Twelve unleavened loaves, sprinkled with frankincense, on a table of gold (Cambridge, citing Leviticus 24 and Exodus 25:30). One loaf for each tribe: the whole people held perpetually before God in bread. That is what was handed to a fugitive and his men.
τῆςtēs. . .G3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleGenitive Feminine Singular
προθέσεωςprotheseōs. . .G4286
√ πρόθεσις — a setting forth, iNounGenitive Feminine Singular
prothesis: a setting forth A verbal noun from protithemi, to set out in front. Greek renders the Hebrew idiom of bread of the Face by naming the act rather than the object: these are the loaves of the placing-before, bread whose whole definition is that it stands in front of God. Cambridge gives the sense exactly and the Levitical references with it. The same noun elsewhere in the New Testament carries the sense of a purpose set forth beforehand; that is a genuine range of the word, not a pun Luke is making here, and nothing in this unit is built on it.
καὶkaiandG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
ἔδωκενedōkengave [it]G1325
√ δίδωμι — to give (used in a very wide application, properly, or by implication, literally or figurativelyVerbAorist Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
didomi: to give The verb that turns a personal exception into a shared one. Cambridge presses the consequence: David violated the letter of the Law with the full sanction of the High Priest, on the plea of necessity, because the higher law of moral obligation supersedes the lower law of ceremonial.
τοῖςtoisto his companionsG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleDative Masculine Plural
μετ’met’. . .G3326
√ μετά — properly, denoting accompanimentPreposition
αὐτοῦautou. . .G846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounGenitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular
ἔφαγενephagen[and] ateG5315
√ φάγω — to eat (literally or figuratively)VerbAorist Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
οὓςhouswhatG3739
√ ὅς — the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, thatPersonal / Relative PronounAccusative Masculine Plural
οὐκoukG3756
√ οὐ — the absolute negative (compare G3361 (μή)) adverbAdverb
ἔξεστινexestinis lawfulG1832
√ ἔξεστι — so also neuter present participle of the same (with or without some form of G1510 (εἰμί) expressed)VerbPresent Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
exesti: it is permitted The Pharisees' own word from v. 2, now placed on David's act by Jesus himself. He does not deny that what David did was, by the letter, not permitted. He grants it, and lets the unpunished precedent do the arguing.
εἰeionly forG1487
√ εἰ — if, whether, that, etcConjunction
μὴmē. . .G3361
√ μή — (adverb) not, (conjunction) lestAdverb
μόνουςmonous. . .G3441
√ μόνος — remaining, iAdjectiveAccusative Masculine Plural
τοὺςtoustheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleAccusative Masculine Plural
ἱερεῖςhiereispriestsG2409
√ ἱερεύς — a priest (literally or figuratively)NounAccusative Masculine Plural
hiereus: a priest Leviticus 24:9 restricts the loaves to Aaron and his sons, to be eaten in a holy place. Gill records the further argument Luke omits and Matthew keeps: the priests themselves profane the Sabbath in the temple every week and are blameless. Cambridge preserves the rabbinic form of it, that there is no sabbatism in the Temple.
φαγεῖνphageinto eatG5315
√ φάγω — to eat (literally or figuratively)VerbAorist Infinitive Active
5

Then Jesus declared, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Greek — tap a word ↓

kai elegen autois ho Huios tou anthrōpou estin Kyrios tou sabbatou

Word by word11 · parsed
καὶkaiThenG2532
√ καί — and, also, even, so then, too, etcConjunction
ἔλεγενelegen[Jesus] declaredG2036
√ ἔπω — to speak or say (by word or writing)VerbImperfect Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
epo: to speak, to say Imperfect. Gill notes the placement: Jesus adds this at the close of the instances, as a full answer, not as the first move. The claim is the conclusion of an argument from Scripture, not a substitute for one.
αὐτοῖςautoisG846
√ αὐτός — the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438 (ἑαυτοῦ)) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other personsPersonal / Possessive PronounDative Masculine 3rd Person Plural
ὁhoTheG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleNominative Masculine Singular
ΥἱὸςHuiosSonG5207
√ υἱός — a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinshipNounNominative Masculine Singular
huios: a son With the article and the following genitive it is a fixed title, not a description. Luke has used it before and will use it again; here it is put in the same breath as Kyrios, which is the shock of the sentence.
τοῦtouG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleGenitive Masculine Singular
ἀνθρώπουanthrōpouof ManG444
√ ἄνθρωπος — from G3700 (ὀπτάνομαι))NounGenitive Masculine Singular
anthropos: a man, a human being "The Son of Man" is the Aramaic idiom of Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds and receives dominion, glory and a kingdom that shall not pass away. The title sounds humble and is not: it is the throne-room title, and pairing it with Lord of the Sabbath is a claim to the dominion Daniel saw given.
ἐστινestinisG1510
√ εἰμί — I exist (used only when emphatic)VerbPresent Indicative Active3rd Person Singular
ΚύριόςKyriosLordG2962
√ κύριος — supreme in authority, iNounNominative Masculine Singular
kyrios: supreme in authority, lord Fronted for emphasis. Pulpit states the resulting dilemma without softening it: either a blasphemer too wicked to be allowed to live, or something the Jerusalem scholars did not want to name. There is no third reading in which this is a mild remark about rest.
τοῦtouof theG3588
√ ὁ — the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)ArticleGenitive Neuter Singular
σαββάτουsabbatouSabbathG4521
√ σάββατον — the Sabbath (iNounGenitive Neuter Singular
sabbaton: the Sabbath The last word of the unit, and the thing in dispute from v. 1. The Sabbath is not abolished in this sentence; it is given an owner. Genesis 2:2-3 says God rested and hallowed the day; the one who claims lordship over it claims to stand where that hallowing was done.

The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.

⚙

Grand Commentary — the unit, read whole

synthesis · verify

AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.

i. A rare word, a ripe field, and a date no one can fix — Luke 6:1

Luke opens with the Septuagintal formula Ἐγένετο δὲ, and then gives a note of time that has defeated every commentator in this brief. Ellicott calls the phrase "second-first sabbath" one that has "nothing like" it "in any other author" and offers six conjectures before admitting it is "impossible to speak decisively in favour of any one of these views." Benson relays Dr. Whitby's count of sabbaths from the second day of unleavened bread and calls it "by far the most probable"; Barnes credits the same reconstruction to Scaliger; Gill canvasses four theories and lands on the same one. Cambridge and Pulpit both break ranks on textual grounds: Cambridge records that the word is omitted in א, B and L and in the Syriac and Coptic, that Tregelles and Meyer drop it and Lachmann and Alford bracket it; Pulpit says flatly that "this word is not found in the majority of the more ancient authorities." BSB prints the shorter text. ⚙ The honest result is that the date is unrecoverable and the season is not: the grain is ripe enough to rub between the palms, so Cambridge's "spring or early summer" is as far as the evidence reaches, and the theological argument does not depend on a day of the year at all.

What the Greek does supply is precision about the act. διαπορεύομαι (G1279) appears in only five verses in the whole New Testament and everywhere else means purposeful travel. τίλλω (G5089, three verses) and στάχυς (G4719, four verses) are equally rare, and the Verifier finds all three sitting together in Matthew 12:1 and Mark 2:23. Luke alone adds ψώχοντες, rubbing. That third verb is why this Gospel's version of the story has an extra charge to answer.

ii. The objection is to the day, and that is the whole point — Luke 6:2

Barnes, quoting Thomson's travels, is exact about what is and is not at issue: "The Pharisees did not object to the thing itself, only to the time when it was done." ⚙ That is not a pious gloss but a legal fact, and Deuteronomy 23:25 is why: a man may pluck ears with his hand in his neighbour's standing grain, though he may put no sickle to it. The taking was lawful. Only the calendar was in dispute.

And the calendar in dispute was not Moses'. Cambridge sets out the machinery: "thirty-nine principal prohibitions" called abhoth, from which "a vast multitude of toldoth" were deduced, under which "plucking corn-ears was a kind of reaping, and rubbing them a kind of threshing." Pulpit describes the same layering and, with Cambridge, passes on Abarbanel's account of Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 who would crop grass with their teeth rather than pluck it by hand on the Sabbath. ⚙ Both commentators reproduce that anecdote to make the tradition look ridiculous, and it is worth saying that the men in it were starving refugees; the fault the passage exposes is in the system, not in the desperate people obeying it. Pulpit's reading of the reply is the sound one: Jesus "does not attempt to discuss what was and what was not lawful on the sabbath," but goes to "the significance, limits, and purpose of every law relating to outward acts."

iii. Not a ruling but a story: David, the loaves of the Presence, and the men with him — Luke 6:3 to Luke 6:4

The counter-argument is a narrative, and the framing is barbed. Οὐδὲ ἀνέγνωτε is "did you not even read this," and Cambridge hears the sting: "a touch of irony at their ignorance... never though ye are Scribes and devote all your time to the Scriptures?" Cambridge also floats, and honestly dates, the possibility that 1 Samuel 21 was the very Haphtarah of that Sabbath, noting that the surviving Jewish lectionary is later evidence.

The case itself is 1 Samuel 21:1-6. Cambridge gives the technical description of what David took: "loaves of setting forth," bread of the Face, twelve unleavened loaves with frankincense on a golden table, citing Leviticus 24:6-7 and Exodus 25:30, and quotes Leviticus 24:9 for the restriction, "It shall be Aaron's and his sons: and they shall eat it in the holy place." Cambridge draws the conclusion with no softening: David "had openly and fearlessly violated the letter of the Law with the full sanction of the High Priest, on the plea of necessity." Pulpit reaches the same place by a different road, adding that David must also have broken the Sabbath journey limit to reach Nob, and states the lesson as "no ceremonial law was to override the general principle of providing for the necessities of the body." Gill notes the further argument Luke omits and Matthew preserves, that the priests themselves "profaned the sabbath day, and yet were not charged with any blame."

⚙ Two details of the Greek carry more freight than the English shows. First, ἔδωκεν: David did not only eat, he gave, and the ones who ate on his account were the men with him. That is the exact shape of the accusation in v. 2, where the disciples eat and the Master answers. Second, Leviticus 24:8 sets the loaves out fresh every Sabbath, which is why Cambridge can say the David episode itself fell on a Sabbath. The precedent is not merely analogous. It is a Sabbath, a sanctuary, holy bread, a hungry man with a following, and no recorded blame.

iv. Lord is the Son of Man of the Sabbath — Luke 6:5

The Greek fronts the predicate: Κύριός ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. JFB will not let the sentence be small: it is "as naked a claim to all the authority of Him who gave the law at Mount Sinai as could possibly be made." Pulpit sets the resulting dilemma before the Jerusalem scholars: "He was either a blasphemer too wicked to be allowed to live, or the alternative must have been a very awful thought." Gill, characteristically, presses the practical consequence, that the Son of Man "may do what he will" on that day, and ⚙ that is where a caution belongs: Luke records lordship over the Sabbath, not its abolition, and Henry's warning on the same paragraph, that we must "take heed that we mistake not this liberty for leave to commit sin," is the needed counterweight from within this same set of voices.

⚙ The title is doing specific work. "Son of Man" reaches Daniel 7:13-14, where one like a son of man is brought before the Ancient of Days and given dominion and a kingdom that shall not pass away. Put Κύριος in front of that title and attach the Sabbath to it, and the claim is not that a rabbi has a permissive reading of the plucking laws. It is that the day of Genesis 2:2-3, hallowed by the Creator's own rest, has its owner standing in the field.

Read under Sola Scriptura — this tool’s own fallible reading (⚙)

⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the text and the named voices above. The argument of this unit runs in three steps and the middle one is usually skipped. Step one: the disciples' act was lawful in itself (Deuteronomy 23:25) and was charged only because of the day, which Barnes states outright. Step two: Jesus does not defend them from the Law; he cites a case where the Law's letter was broken by the man Israel most admires, and no blame is recorded. He grants that what David did was οὐκ ἔξεστιν, not permitted, and lets the silence of 1 Samuel about any penalty stand as the verdict. Step three, and only then: the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. The order matters. He does not begin from authority and dispense with argument; he argues from their own Scriptures first and names his authority last, so that the claim arrives as the conclusion of a reading rather than as a way around one. A reader who takes only step three has the Christology and none of the exegetical discipline that the Lord of the Sabbath himself modelled. What the unit does not say should also be marked: it does not say the Sabbath is void, it does not say hunger dissolves holiness, and it does not say the loaves of the Presence were common bread. It says the day has a Lord, and that he was the one walking the field while men argued about a handful of grain.

They fenced the day and He owned it; the bread of the Presence had always been headed for hungry men.

⚙

Canonical Threads — out to the whole of Scripture

cross-refs · verify

AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.

"Have you never read what David did" (1 Samuel 21:1-6) structural / thematic: confirmed

The whole of Jesus' defence is a single Old Testament narrative: David at Nob, hungry, with men, given the holy bread by the priest. Cambridge sets out the case ("David, their favourite saint and hero, had openly and fearlessly violated the letter of the Law with the full sanction of the High Priest, on the plea of necessity") and Pulpit adds that the visit "took place evidently on the sabbath, as the fresh supply of shewbread had been apparently just laid out." ⚙ Jesus does not quote a word of 1 Samuel. He names the episode and expects it to be known, which is a different and in some ways stronger appeal: the argument rests on his opponents' own reverence for the story.

1 Samuel 21:1-6

basis: Jesus appeals to the narrative of 1 Samuel 21:1-6 by name and summary, not by word-for-word quotation, so no quotation claim is made. The tier also reflects the cross-Testament rule: this pairs Greek (Luke) with Hebrew (1 Samuel) and shared Strong's numbers cannot exist across the two lexicons, so a verbal tier is unavailable in principle as well as unwarranted in fact.

The loaves of the Presence, renewed every Sabbath (Leviticus 24:5-9; Exodus 25:30) structural / thematic: confirmed

Luke's Greek is τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως, the loaves of the setting-forth. Cambridge identifies them precisely: "‘loaves of setting forth;’ ... ‘Bread of the Face,’ i.e. set before the Presence of God," twelve unleavened loaves with frankincense on a little golden table, citing Leviticus 24:6-7 and Exodus 25:30, and quotes Leviticus 24:9 for the restriction to Aaron and his sons in a holy place. Leviticus 24:8 sets them out fresh every Sabbath, which is why the David incident must itself have fallen on a Sabbath. ⚙ So the counter-example is not merely about holy bread; it is about holy bread on a Sabbath, handed to men who had no right to it.

Leviticus 24:5-9 · Exodus 25:30

basis: Institutional identification, not quotation: Luke's <em>artoi tes protheseos</em> names the object legislated in Leviticus 24:5-9 and Exodus 25:30. Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so no shared Strong's lexeme is computable and no verbal tier is available.

"Even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest" (Exodus 34:21; Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15) structural / thematic: confirmed

The Sabbath command under dispute is Exodus 20:8-11, grounded in creation, and Deuteronomy 5:12-15, grounded in the exodus from Egypt. Exodus 34:21 sharpens it to precisely this case: rest is commanded even in plowing time and harvest. ⚙ That is why the Pharisees' objection has a real footing and is not simple malice: harvest labour is the named exception that is not an exception. The answer given is not that the command is trivial but that necessity and mercy are not the harvest labour the command forbids, and that the one speaking has authority over the institution itself.

Exodus 34:21 · Exodus 20:8-11 · Deuteronomy 5:12-15

basis: The legal background the dispute presupposes, identified by content rather than citation: Luke quotes none of these texts. Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so shared Strong's lexemes cannot be computed and the tier can never be verbal.

The plucking itself was permitted (Deuteronomy 23:25) structural / thematic: confirmed

Deuteronomy 23:25 allows a man entering his neighbour's standing grain to pluck the ears with his hand, forbidding only the sickle. Barnes states the consequence in the sharpest form available in this brief: "The Pharisees did not object to the thing itself, only to the time when it was done... The Pharisees complained of the disciples for violating the Sabbath, and not any rights of property." Pulpit begins to quote the verse directly before the entry is capped. ⚙ Without this statute the story is about theft; with it the story is only ever about the day, which is the distinction the whole pericope turns on.

Deuteronomy 23:25

basis: A legal permission presupposed by the narrative and named by Barnes and Pulpit as the reason the charge is about the Sabbath and not about property. Not quoted in Luke. Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so no shared Strong's basis exists and no verbal tier is possible.

What Sabbath-breaking had once cost (Exodus 31:14-15; Numbers 15:32-36) structural / thematic: confirmed

Exodus 31:14-15 attaches death to profaning the Sabbath, and Numbers 15:32-36 records it carried out on a man gathering sticks. ⚙ This is the weight behind the Pharisees' question, and it should not be waved away: they are not policing an etiquette but a capital statute. Pulpit, discussing the spurious Codex Bezae addition after v. 5, makes the same observation from the other direction, that a man openly breaking the Sabbath in that manner "would have been liable to be arrested and condemned to death by stoning." The gravity is what makes v. 5 audacious rather than merely liberal.

Exodus 31:14-15 · Numbers 15:32-36

basis: Shared legal motif supplying the stakes of the accusation; nothing is quoted and no claim of citation is made. Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), where shared Strong's lexemes are not computable, so the link is tiered structural on both grounds.

Three rare words shared with the Synoptic parallels (Matthew 12:1; Mark 2:23) verbal / quotation: confirmed

The Verifier scores Matthew 12:1 at 1.03 and Mark 2:23 at 0.97 against this verse, on τίλλω (G5089, in three verses), στάχυς (G4719, in four verses) and, with Matthew, ἐσθίω (G2068). Two of those lexemes are as rare as anything in the Gospels. JFB, Cambridge and Barnes all route the reader to the Matthew and Mark parallels, and Poole's entries in this unit consist of nothing but such cross-references. ⚙ The verbal relation here is real and is within the Greek New Testament, so the tier is available; the distinctive Lucan addition is ψώχοντες, rubbing, which neither parallel has.

Matthew 12:1 · Mark 2:23

basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G5089 tillo (in 3 vv) and G4719 stachys (in 4 vv), both rare, plus G2068 esthio (in 55 vv) with Matthew 12:1. All three references are New Testament Greek, so the shared-lexeme basis is computable and the verbal tier is legitimate; this is a Synoptic parallel, not an Old Testament quotation.

Mark's Abiathar and Ahimelech: a difficulty Luke does not have flagged: verify source

Mark 2:26 places David's visit "in the days of Abiathar the high priest," while 1 Samuel 21:1 names Ahimelech, Abiathar's father, as the priest who gave the bread. Cambridge states it without evasion: "St Mark says that this was ‘in the days of Abiathar the high priest.’ The priest who actually gave the bread to David was Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar." ⚙ The difficulty is Mark's alone. Luke names no priest at all, so nothing in this unit stands or falls on it, and it is listed here only so that a reader who meets the problem elsewhere knows where it does and does not live. Proposed harmonisations exist and none of them is in this brief, so none is asserted.

Mark 2:26 · 1 Samuel 21:1

basis: The naming of the priest is disputed between Mark 2:26 (Abiathar) and 1 Samuel 21:1 (Ahimelech); Cambridge records the conflict and offers no resolution. Flagged rather than asserted. Not tiered verbal: the refs mix a New Testament and an Old Testament book, and the point at issue is a contested attribution, not a shared lexeme.

"One like a son of man" and the day God hallowed (Daniel 7:13-14; Genesis 2:2-3) typological

The title in v. 5 is Daniel's: one like a son of man brought to the Ancient of Days and given dominion, glory and an everlasting kingdom. The institution he claims is Genesis 2:2-3, the day God rested and blessed and sanctified. JFB reads the sentence as "as naked a claim to all the authority of Him who gave the law at Mount Sinai as could possibly be made." ⚙ Joining the Daniel title to the Genesis institution is the reading offered here; the passage supplies both ends and states the join, and the reader should weigh whether the join is Luke's or the tool's.

Daniel 7:13-14 · Genesis 2:2-3

basis: Figural: the Son of Man title of Daniel 7:13-14 read together with the creation Sabbath of Genesis 2:2-3. The Son of Man identification is ancient and widely held; the explicit pairing with Genesis 2:2-3 is the synthesis layer's own construction and is marked as such. Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so no shared Strong's basis exists and the tier is never verbal.

A rare verb of purposeful journeying (Luke 13:22; Acts 16:4; Romans 15:24) structural / thematic: confirmed

διαπορεύομαι (G1279) occurs in only five verses. Elsewhere Luke uses it of Jesus journeying toward Jerusalem teaching as he goes (Luke 13:22), of the crowd passing by at Jericho (Luke 18:36), of Paul and Silas travelling through the cities delivering the decrees (Acts 16:4), and of Paul's intended passage through Rome toward Spain (Romans 15:24). ⚙ In every case the passing-through is on the way to something. The grainfield is not a destination; the disciples eat in transit, which is part of why the meal is a necessity rather than a leisure.

Luke 13:22 · Luke 18:36 · Acts 16:4 · Romans 15:24

basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G1279 diaporeuomai (in 5 vv), a rare verb, across four New Testament passages. Deliberately not tiered verbal: no quotation or citation is involved, only a shared uncommon word within one author's usage, so the honest tier is structural.

⚙Christ in the Unittypology · verify

AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.

Lord of the day he hallowed ancient/widely-held

JFB reads v. 5 as "as naked a claim to all the authority of Him who gave the law at Mount Sinai as could possibly be made," and Pulpit frames the only two options left to the hearers: "either a blasphemer too wicked to be allowed to live, or the alternative must have been a very awful thought to some of the nobler spirits among those Jerusalem learned men." ⚙ The claim is not that the Sabbath is abolished but that it has an owner, and the owner is the one who rested and blessed and sanctified the seventh day in Genesis 2:2-3. The Greek puts Κύριος first in the clause, and the title joined to it is Daniel's Son of Man, to whom dominion and an unending kingdom are given. Henry's caution on the same paragraph keeps the reading honest: the liberty here is not "leave to commit sin," and "Christ will have us to know and remember that it is his day."

Genesis 2:2-3 · Daniel 7:13-14 · Exodus 20:8-11

The greater David, and bread given to the men with him ancient/widely-held

Cambridge states the precedent's logic: David broke the letter "on the plea of necessity," and Cambridge gives the reason as "because mercy is better than sacrifice; and because the higher law of moral obligation must always supersede the lower law of ceremonial." ⚙ But the structure of the story reaches further than the plea. David is the anointed but not-yet-enthroned king, in flight, hungry, with men attached to him; the priest gives him the holy bread and he gives it to them. In Luke 6 the son of David walks a field with hungry men attached to him, and the bread they are accused over is defended on his account, not on their own merits. The men eat because of the one they are with. Pulpit's summary of the lesson, that "no ceremonial law was to override the general principle of providing for the necessities of the body," is right as far as it goes; the christological weight is that the standing on which the companions eat is their Master's.

1 Samuel 21:1-6 · Luke 6:3-4 · Leviticus 24:5-9

Bread of the Presence, and the Presence giving bread novel

⚙ This reading is the synthesis layer's own and is offered to be tested. The ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως are, in Cambridge's rendering of the Hebrew idiom, "Bread of the Face," bread set before the Presence of God, twelve loaves for twelve tribes, renewed every Sabbath and eaten only by priests in a holy place. In this pericope the Presence is not behind a veil at Nob; he is in the field, and the bread in question is a handful of rubbed grain in the hands of unqualified men whom he refuses to condemn. Luke will later show the same hands taking bread, blessing, breaking and giving it to disciples. The figural line from the loaves of the Presence to the bread the Lord himself hands over is not drawn by any commentator quoted in this brief, and no ancient attestation for it is claimed here; it is marked novel for that reason.

Exodus 25:30 · Leviticus 24:5-9 · Luke 22:19

Apparatus & Provenance

The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.

Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:

  • Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible (1834)
  • Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, — (1880s)
  • Charles Ellicott, Commentary for English Readers (1878)
  • Geneva Study Bible, Marginal Notes (1599)
  • Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory (1871)
  • John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible (1746–63)
  • Joseph Benson, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1810s)
  • Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706)
  • The Pulpit Commentary, Spence & Exell, eds. (1880s)

Text. The largest textual question in this unit is one BSB has already decided. Six of the ten commentators here (Ellicott, Benson, Barnes, JFB, Gill, Cambridge, Pulpit) write at length on "the second sabbath after the first," en sabbato deuteroproto, because their base text contains it. BSB does not print it, and the Berean interlinear supplied in this brief has no such words. Cambridge records the omission in א, B and L and in the Syriac and Coptic, with Tregelles and Meyer dropping it and Lachmann and Alford bracketing it; Pulpit says only Tischendorf admits it to the text. Every explanation offered in this unit for the phrase is therefore commentary on a reading the printed text does not carry, and this synthesis treats it as such: the conjectures are reported, none is endorsed, and no note or thread depends on the date.

A second variant. At v. 5 the older printed texts read "Lord also" or "Lord even" of the Sabbath; JFB and Cambridge both comment on the adverb. BSB omits it. Where their wording depends on it, that is flagged in the voice notes rather than silently carried over.

An interpolation. Codex Bezae adds after v. 5 the saying to a man working on the Sabbath, "if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed." Cambridge calls it unacceptable "on the authority of a single MS." and classes it among the agrapha; Pulpit pronounces it "an interpolation." It is no part of Luke and is not used in this synthesis.

Sources. Poole's three entries in this unit are cross-references only ("See Poole on Luke 6:1"), so Poole is named but not quoted. Barnes' most quoted sentences in this unit are themselves quotations from Thomson's The Land and the Book and from Hackett; that is flagged where used. Henry's, Barnes' and JFB's notes are repeated verbatim across several verse slots in the source, so a single anchor stands for the whole paragraph.

What is uncertain. Luke never says the disciples were hungry; Matthew's parallel does, and the hunger in Luke's text belongs to David. Luke never names the priest at Nob, so Mark's Abiathar difficulty does not arise here and is flagged, not resolved. Whether 1 Samuel 21 was the day's Haphtarah is Cambridge's suggestion, and Cambridge itself notes the surviving lectionary is later evidence. The identification of the grain as wheat rather than barley (Cambridge) is an inference from the ripening calendar, not from the Greek, which says only στάχυς, heads of grain. The pairing of Daniel 7 with Genesis 2:2-3 in v. 5, and the figural reading of the bread of the Presence in the third christ entry, are the synthesis layer's own and are marked accordingly.

✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)