How he entered … indicates this is a continuation of what one can read that David did. Good News Translation starts a new sentence and drops the how. Other translations can also start a new sentence but begin it with “It says…,” “God’s book says…,” or “You read there….” It should follow naturally from the previous verse.
This incident took place before David’s son Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, so it would be incorrect to translate house of God the same as “Temple.” If “house of God” is used elsewhere for “Temple,” here “place where God stayed” or “tent of God’s presence” will be better.
The account in 1 Samuel 21.1-6 does not indicate that David went into the house of God. It in fact suggests that the priest went in and brought the bread out to David. Moreover, David’s men were not with him at the time. According to the account in 1 Samuel, David received the bread from Ahimelech the priest, after which he took it to his men, and then they (David and his men) ate it. Therefore considerable restructuring may be necessary in this verse in order to avoid a misunderstanding of the sequence of events. Most all translations of this verse seem to imply either that David went into the house of God and then brought the bread out to his men, who ate it outside the house of God together with him, or that David and his men went into the house of God, and then all of them ate the bread there.
It is not the role of the translator to attempt to harmonize two conflicting statements of the same event. On the other hand, some languages may require a more explicit outline of events than is included in the Greek text. For example, the Greek text states explicitly that David did go into the house of God, even though this information is apparently contrary to the account in the Old Testament. Moreover, purely on the basis of the Greek text alone, it is possible to assume that we have a structure similar to that discussed in Matthew 12.3, which can mean that the men accompanied David as he went into the house of God. However, whereas that conclusion was required for verse 3, it is not necessary to conclude here that the men accompanied David into the house of God. The Greek text is also ambiguous about the place where David ate the bread with the men.
As we said, translators should not harmonize. But it can be assumed that the account in these verses is based on 1 Samuel itself. Therefore in cases where Matthew’s wording leaves more than one interpretation open, it is probably safe to assume he intended the alternative that agrees with 1 Samuel rather than the one that contradicts it.
If we follow the information given in 1 Samuel 21.1-6, then the following sequence of events results: (1) David went into the house of God; (2) he got the bread (from Ahimelech the priest); (3) he left the house of God; (4) he took the bread back to where his men were; and (5) he and his men ate the bread there. Of the modern English translations, only Moffatt explicitly defines the place where the men ate: “how he went into the house of God, and there they ate….” If one assumes that the eating took place in the house of God, as Moffatt does, many languages will require “how he and his men went into the house of God, and there they ate….” However, the sequence of events outlined above is preferable.
How he entered … and ate assumes that only David ate, which agrees with the parallels in Mark 2.26 and Luke 6.4. But some Greek manuscripts have “they ate”; the UBS Greek text supports this plural reading, since it is more logical that the reading would have been altered in the direction of the parallels in Mark and Luke than the other way around.
Good News Translation provides a helpful model here: “He (that is, David) went into … and he and his men ate….” In most languages a sentence like this will leave it clear that David must have come out before he and his men ate the bread. Others, however, will require that more of the sequence of events be made explicit, as in “David went into God’s house and got the bread offered to God. He brought it (out) and he and his men ate it.”
The bread of the Presence (Good News Translation “the bread offered to God”) is translated “the loaves of the offering” by New Jerusalem Bible. New English Bible has “the sacred bread,” Barclay “the sacred loaves,” and New American Bible “the holy bread.” The bread referred to was in the form of twelve loaves which were laid on a table in the house of God each Sabbath. The bread was offered there to the Lord, and then on the following Sabbath it became the possession of the priests, who were required to eat it in a holy place. For regulations governing this bread, see Leviticus 24.5-9. Many translators have rendered the bread of the Presence as Good News Translation has. A variation on this is “the bread that is for God.” Bread is becoming more commonly known, but if it is not known, “the food offered to God” is possible.
Which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him is shortened by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch: “although this was forbidden.” The Law referred to is the Jewish Law (Good News Translation “even though it was against the Law for them to eat it”).
Some translators will begin a new sentence: “They ate that bread even though the Law did not permit that” or “… even though that was against our Law.”
Note that nor for those who were with him has been dealt with above. Practically all translators will find it more natural to mention David’s followers early in the verse in conjunction with ate, not toward the end as the text has it.
But only for the priests?: Good News Translation makes two significant adjustments here: (1) the shift from a question form to a statement, and (2) the inclusion of a verb which is implicit in the Greek. This simplifies the reading, as may be seen from comparing New English Bible (“though neither he nor his men had a right to eat it, but only the priests”) with Barclay (“although he and his friends had no right to eat them, because only the priests are permitted to eat them”). Most translators will want to follow the lead of Good News Translation and Barclay, in some cases beginning a new sentence: “Only the priests were allowed to eat that bread” or “The Law allowed only the priests….”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .